t 
Wid bhp ee 
nNTae in| 


. igi 
SORE 
‘iw 


bi a 
oi aM 
ah 


ey 


4 
{ 


Lae 


$6) 
ene amy 
sobady 
iWeb 

; 


wis 
aig 
be veld 
th 


‘it 


fy 
a] 

RL eBycin Unie 
Naa aay Ha) 


4 i) ‘ es tu 
ts i, j 


casa 
We iataised 
pal th 


nh 
I 


we j 

siete dee dieey 
Hemi tee 
Neen 
ey 


a 
ny ‘ ua 

Ant $s 
b4e 
aint at 
wh arity 
dhe 


420) gd 
a hehey 

Ta) Me 

haaiie 


Phe eg Bh 
Bei des bey 
it Wel Aaa tad 


ar Dh eee 
Auindeeebiees 


; ie 
: Hah gekes y 
hay 
we Riearatneds 
Gib pieaar eto rybhiiieet tien 
AOE han Sa EH ITS oth 


i 
b) 
Splish, 
Pas reli ah 
haset ial 


44 
ty a 


raat 


te 
Aewe Be i} (ee gaits 8 
phe aoa 

Meat 4 : 


iM 


45 
iii) 
Ege 


Asin aay 
rh 4 


A shoaH 
v con of. iat 
ine 


Sita f 
PA) Was tia 
Why ig 


tte 
a 
Ria Palle 
Whe 


ei 
teh 
i 

i en aea Me 


‘ins 


ft 
4 ye eR 
RANE 
Sahat nae 
mG 
Arapcusostnae 
Wee) 


$4; 


riko brea) it 


ete 


tee 
tte 40h fda lad 
a ber ML) 


ita fi 


Witen lle, 


HAN 
Way 5. 
Maldags 


Th 
Maeda: 
ac 


y 
ant 


GTPROE LG: 
DPATAE Rw 


iLL aers 
theasotees 


Aid ? 
pee 


if 
¥ 
mit i 
wal att i 
Harcitammhea seh 


itlayl 
i 
ame 


if 
bibs 


1} Ke 
iisiad ras 
zee i 


: See RneaPity 
ye 


Sata in , 
ia 
ae 
ey 
ps 


Hy) 
$ 7h, 
i i) 
‘43 Meee) 
i i int vf 


ME grater eto 

i adsl saat 
dtd pei Tr 
a of tha 
ee 
fs igh 


ley 


sy i ints ; i 
a 
pai 


tae sp 
ee 


ee 


= 
c= 
ee 


‘ pie 


a 


AAS oh eet 4) 
Uh 


regs 
SEH a sh 
Haney fa 
Pet eon ( 
pHs ia 
Li 


H iG in 
eile, SOS O at 
i dele HEIGMedte arate 
i iH} eseyl 
Su agar unannat seta 
Midd ae sue 
Me ante Mt 
Prhy 
‘ 


‘i 


halt 
i stn At ain ang 
F sali i Sait Pee pte Chia 
rH eyiak il i Se Ms 
Hersahoas ne) He eats 
ath Pi lteataatee 


re 


Hones ie hab tart 


eas! # pa> 

Perea it 

ies ’ , y 

ciecee pat 
ay 


arabs iH 
eae He 
ee att te i r 
sabi sk 


PE he ‘yi * 
» yet 
aH 
brurais 
yeate 
;: 


Mahe 
ew a 


es 


Ese 


fas 


. 
yt RD ah al 


A 


rH 
rt) 


Oy) 


fai 


nat 


brad voids! 
iD 


Pe 
ce 


tel 


i 
4 329) 
jigteseaite tan 
Agri ts 


ir) " 
8 3G 
Me eH 


erat 
t} 
ii 


am i] 
2 
uh L} 





THE UNIVERSITY 
OF ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


Q13.32 
MSI 


NT fe 
cop 2 





hi 


b 


ook on or before the 
Stamped below. 


of Illinois Library 





hi 











oe) 
7 ae a ‘ 
pate ; , ae e 
| SoNTTT go Ansa | ) 
Apyaen Jul 








EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 
VOL. III 


THE 
BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE 


BY 


W. Max MULLER. 

















PUBLISHED BY THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON, 1920 





a%2 
oat Oe | a 
a att enk eraby % 


i? a0 ae 


yee ia, 
| ‘ 
as 
i . - ahs 
wi)4 ae ‘. 
Kal : 
.2 : a . ae 3 hey ry mine 
4 : ; 
Le | 
i: P 
' 
te cat 


Carnecie InstiruTION or WasHINGTON 
PusLication 53, Votume III 
He 


INTRODUCTION. 


In 1910, through the liberality of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, I was enabled 
to visit the doomed island of Phile and to glean the epigraphic material left by the Berlin 
expedition. My first thought was the decipherment of the famous bilingual inscriptions 
engraved on the walls of the large court between the first and the second pylons. These texts 
had attracted the attention of the very first Egyptologists and were soon recognized as con- 
taining the greatest epigraphic treasure of the island, but their state of mutilation had caused 
them to remain a dead treasure for almost a century. 

Champollion (1828) mentions them in his Notices Descriptives I, p. 178, describing briefly 
some sculptures of Ptolemy Neos Dionysos (Champollion thought Philometor). He con- 
tinues: ‘The inscriptions are illegible because they are drawn over a hieroglyphic and demotic 
inscription from the reign of Epiphanes.”’ It is thus evident that the admirable man who, 
with almost superhuman energy, gathered such an immense mass of material from the monu- 
ments, recognized clearly the bilingual character of those inscriptions, but he had no time for 
the study of such difficult texts. 

In 1843 R. Lepsius noticed those inscriptions which (he thought) “had not been noticed 
by the French-Tuscan expedition’’ and observed their bilingual character. He announced 
this as a very important discovery (see his Briefe aus Aigypten, 108-109, English ed., 120-121). 
In the first decree he saw nothing but a republication of the Rosettana enlarged by the honors 
given to Queen Cleopatra. This involved him in a controversy with de Saulcy, who, on the 
basis of paper impressions taken by Ampere, contested correctly the identity of the decrees of 
Rosetta and Phile. (On this discussion see Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenl. Gesellschaft, 1847, 
264, foll., Revwe Arch., IV, 240.) 

Next Brugsch passed Phile. In his Rezseberichte, p. 261, he described the decree of 

Epiphanes as “sculptured into the wall with characters so minute that I was hardly able to 
recognize it.”’ In his Sammlung demotischer Urkunden (1850), pl. 3, he published some extracts 
from the first decree, trying to show the correspondence of the hieroglyphic and deinotic 
fragments; also to him the text seemed to be important only for filling gaps of the Rosetta 
inscription. The way in which he gave those extracts was very imperfect.’ It is questionable 
if he copied the second decree. 

In his Denkmaeler aus Aigypten (IV, pl. 33, the demotic text, VI, 30 to 34), Lepsius, who, in 
the use of paper squeezes, possessed a great advantage over his predecessors, had a facsimile 
drawn after the paper impressions of both decrees. These copies, although infinitely better 
than the attempts of Brugsch, left the text so fragmentary that nobody utilized them. 

Finally, Brugsch (Aeg. Zeitschr., 1878, 44), with great sagacity, observed the connection 
of the second decree with the great Egyptian rebellion. His preliminary hints about the con- 
tents suggest that he then planned a more exhaustive treatment of the text, but later abandoned 
this undertaking. 








1The most objectionable features are some wild restorations where there was absolutely nothing on the stone. 


S13405 


2 INTRODUCTION. 


G. Ebers, in Baedeker’s first Guide Book to Upper Egypt (Oberaegypten, 1891) stated, p. 
322, after Brugsch: “Of scientific importance, but written extremely minutely and almost 
illegibly, are the decrees, above, on the left colonnade near the first pylon, discovered [szc/] by 
Lepsius in 1843, written in the twenty-first year of Ptolemy Epiphanes in demotic and hiero- 
glyphic writing, one at the celebration of the suppression of a rebellion and the punishment of 
the malefactors, the other in honor of Cleopatra, the wife of Epiphanes. Unfortunately these 
decrees have been much mutilated by the figures later (under Neos Dionysos) cut over them.” 

In the edition of Baedeker of 1897, p. 354, this description of the “scientifically important”’ 
texts was limited to the first, which is called “a duplicate of the well-known inscription of 
Rosetta (only the Greek text lacking).’’ Later editions withdrew this remark. 

How far those texts remained unknown to science may be concluded from the fact that 
E. A. W. Budge, in his first volume of The Rosetta Stone, p. 20, in 1904, reproduced a small sec- 
tion of the so-called second decree from Lepsius’s plate with the title “portion of a copy of the 
decree on the Rosetta stone cut in hieroglyphic upon a wall of a temple at Phile.” This illus- 
trates well the illegibility of that publication. 

The high importance of those texts became clear to me when, in 1883-84, as a student at 
Leipzig, I took up privately the study of the demotic script of the ancient Egyptians. Con- 
tinuing these studies at Berlin, in 1884-85, I received from the administration of the Berlin 
Royal Museum permission to examine the paper squeezes brought home by the Lepsius expe- 
dition and immediately saw how that almost useless copy in Lepsius’s Denkmaeler could be 
vastly improved by the study of the original. I devoted much time to the decipherment of 
those squeezes and in later years obtained collations of various details on them by Erman, 
Schaefer, and Sethe, and returned twice to Berlin for the purpose of collating them personally. 
Later, I received, through the courtesy of W. Spiegelberg, a set of paper squeezes of my own. 
My results, however, never were sufficiently certain. ‘The edition presented here is based 
principally on my work in the summer of 1910, when I was able to make further impressions and 
to compare with the original stone the results obtained by me up to that time from squeezes. 
Everybody familiar with epigraphic methods knows that even the best paper impression can 
not entirely replace the study of the original; sometimes a sign will look different on every other 
squeeze. Here, of course, the original is unusually difficult. The small, shallow-engraved 
signs become distinctly visible only during the short time of the day when they receive strong 
side-light; running up and down on high ladders during that time, when even the seconds seem 
precious, is the work of Tantalus for the scholar who would like to brood for hours over a single 
difficult sign. Nevertheless, this comparison of the original on stone was a very desirable 
and even indispensable supplement to the previous attempts of decipherment from squeezes. 

What I offer as result is, I hope, almost exhaustive for the hieroglyphic text, more than can 
be said, e. g., of the existing reproductions of the Rosetta stone.’ A few remaining uncertain- 





1 The principal paleographic characteristics of the hieroglyphs and the distances are carefully reproduced, but (e. g.) the clumsy 
and irregular division-lines (both of the first and second text) are not exactly imitated, because this would interfere with the legibility 
of the text. Therefore, I have also inverted the direction of the hieroglyphic text which, in the original, runs from right to left; in 
measuring the distances, etc., the inverted form on the squeezes had to be followed. ‘The commentary has been limited to the most 
condensed notes possible, principally because the lack of hieroglyphic types forbids philological investigations. Likewise the tran- 
scription of Egyptian aims at simplicity, especially in the very complicated question of rendering the demotic orthography. ‘The 
employment of simple z for the widely different Egyptian sound fs, etc., is to be considered in this light. 


INTRODUCTION. 3 


ties have been indicated. The demotic texts, owing to the difficult script which is so poorly 
suited for monumental use (a kind of stenography always depending much on the context), leave 
more uncertainty. I have, in their case, tried to draw mechanically only what I could see 
clearly and without fancy. Of course, every experienced philologist knows how difficult it is 
to call a’decipherment of a palimpsestic manuscript final when it contains a unique text not 
controlled by parallel manuscripts. Here, on stone, the difficulties are increased. I hope, 
however, to have saved the best historic treasure of Phile so far that scientists will not have 
to lament an irreparable loss when the beautiful temples of Philz come to be completely 
destroyed by submerging. The end of Philee will, I must state it with regret, come much sooner 
than has been admitted in the press. 


HES PIRST DECREE. 


The “‘first’’! bilingual decree of Phile, engraved on the right side of the wall, is a modified 
copy of the famous decree of Rosetta, or rather of Memphis, in which city the priests of all 
the Egyptian temples (as far as they were then under control of the struggling Alexandrian 
government) had assembled in the ninth year of Ptolemy V., Epiphanes, to honor the king as 
benefactor of the temples and of the whole Egyptian nation. ‘Two years after the suppression 
of the great revolution, 7. e., in the year 21, the priests at another convention in Memphis are 
stated to have renewed that decree of thanks to the king and the establishment of his divine 
worship. ‘The principal reason was that the decree of year 9 had not yet been set up in the 
temples of the Upper Country, owing to the long years of rebellion. The promulgation of 
those honors to the king seemed the more necessary to the priests because the reforms of the 
old decree (above all, the remission of taxes lost to the Alexandrian government in the rebellious 
provinces) had been extended to the time of the suppression of the rebellion, 7. e., to the year 
19 inclusive. 

Of course, these reasons are not stated too plainly in the new decree; this would have meant 
a painful confession of past disloyalty. Still, the decree was not entirely reproduced at Philz 
as it had been written in the year 9. Instead of maintaining the fiction that the Upper Country 
had been loyal, the text of the priestly resolution of Memphis is here given mutatis mutandis.’ 
Therefore it bears not the original date of the ninth year, but the date of the convention of the 
year 21. ; 

The divine honors are extended to the queen, Cleopatra, as probably had always been 
done since the date of her marriage. ‘This formal recognition of the queen’s cult is, however, 
not the main point for republication, as Lepsius thought. The great rebellion furnished the 
principal reason for this republication. All references to that great rebellion, however, were 
taken out of the old text of Memphis; that whole unfortunate period now was left to oblivion. 





1T still use this expression because the erroneous numbering introduced by Lepsius has become familiar. According to its dating 

(de above oie is the second. See the references to the alleged ‘‘second’’ decree in the “‘first’’ inscription, line 9f and 13c¢ to d 
demotic 13f). 

apiti ee of Damanhur, of the year 23, the scribe simply altered the protocol of year 9 to that of year 23, but copied the text 
of year 9 for the rest quite mechanically. This was mere negligence, not a wilful fiction of conservatism or loyalty. I am not sure 
whether we can draw the inference from a comparison of the two later editions (Phila and Damanhur) that the adaptations of the 
decree of Memphis were left to the scholars of each temple, instead of being worked out at the convention where the renewal of that 
decree was decided. ‘The inclination of the Egyptian mind toward a ce.taiv laxity in execution of everything may be considered, at 
least in the case of the Damanhur copy. 


4 INTRODUCTION. 


The modifications in the enumeration of royal reforms and benefits are the most difficult to 
understand; in the mutilated condition of the text we can not follow them very well nor decide 
whether the shortening of some paragraphs was due to cancellation of those laws’ or to the 
impression of the redactor that those matters were somewhat obsolete after twelve years. 
The most important matter of the decree, after all, claims to be the worship of the royal couple, 
and of this the description is given very minutely. For the rest, the redactor’s mode of pro- 
ceeding remains yet to be determined. 

We might infer from the promptness with which the priests at Phila engraved the two 
decrees, and from the prominent place which they gave to them, that they had a specially bad 
conscience toward the Alexandrian government. We can not, however, with full certainty, 
add this inference to some other indications which could be interpreted as though the rebellion 
had started in the cataract region or had received special aid from this frontier district. (See 
below, on the titles of the two rebel kings.) 

The question of the original language of all those priestly decrees is now rather plain. The 
priests, of course, discussed their resolutions and probably sketched them in their native lan- 
guage. Itis certain that the first form in which the resolutions went into writing was in demotic 
script; the hieroglyphic style was too much confined to the most learned and not practical 
enough for a protocol of this kind. The official form, however, finally was in Greek. After 
this form, authorized by communication to the Royal Government, the final Egyptian versions, 
such as we have them, were translated rather literally. Small additions occur for the sake of 
loyalty or clearness; they are of greater importance where the Greek redaction had not done 
full justice to matters of too special Egyptian character, e. g., in the description of the hiero- 
glyphic symbols decorating the portable shrine of the king, which had merely been summarily 
touched by the Greek version (Rosetta, lines 43 to 44). There the Egyptian translations went 
back to the original (demotic) minutes of the priest.” Elsewhere, these minutes scarcely 
exercise any influence. The demotic version of the official Greek form preceded the hiero- 
glyphic; the latter often leans more on the demotic than on the Greek text. These principles 
I consider now as settled, especially for the Rosetta and Phile decree.’ 

Difficult and obscure as are the Egyptian versions, on account of their clumsy writing and 
style, nevertheless they are extremely helpful for the elucidation of the Greek text. The 
redactors of this text always strove more for eleganceand terseness of style than for clearness, pre- 
supposing too much that the readers would be sufficiently familiar with the matters mentioned. 
Of course, the hieroglyphic versions arehampered, on their part, by their striving after archaizing 
beauty while expressing too modern matters. To follow a model in a language differing in 
expression so widely from Egyptian as does classical Greek was not much easier for the hiero- 
grammates than it would be for a lawyer or newspaper reporter of our age to express matters of 
modern politics or business in Latin. The demotic version ought to be simpler and is, indeed, 








1 As Mahaffy, Empire, 311, believes to trace the reintroduction of the apomoira from wine, in documents from the year 18. 

2 Not copying them, however, word for word. ‘The description is neither quite exhaustive nor clear in the demotic version on stone. 

3 Thus the remarks by Mahaffy (Empire of the Ptolemies, 302) on the succession of the versions, are to be corrected. ‘The plan 
of all those decrees is, of course, very un-Greek, betraying somewhat the first conception in the old Egyptian style, but their Greek 
wording is excellent, at least for the contemporaries. The demotic text, on the other hand, struggles too desperately and is often too 
un-Egyptian to be literally the original version of the final official edition. 

4 See the honest confession of Mahaffy, Empire, 302, 


INTRODUCTION. 5 


more helpful where the complicated writing, especially poorly suited for monumental use (p. 3), 
can be read with certainty.!. Thus the gaps and obscurities of the Greek text of the Rosettana 
need comparison with the Egyptian versions, while these useful commentaries themselves would 
be much more obscure without the Greek original. We gain now, by our parallel text from 
Philz, a better understanding of all three versions of the Rosettana, principally of the hiero- 
glyphic part.’ 

One general result of comparing our Phile text with the Rosettana is the relatively close 
_adherence to the style of the official hieroglyphic text of year 9. The Egyptian scribes of the 
New Empire usually showed great lack of accuracy in copying any texts; they varied their 
models intentionally by freely using synonymous words and synonymous orthography. We 
still find a great amount of such liberty in those Ptolemaic decrees, more than modern systems 
of writing would tolerate, but the scholars who could use archaic Egyptian quite fluently had 
evidently become scarcer; therefore, we observe that such masterpieces of style as the Rosetta 
text were followed in a fairly accurate way, especially where they contained strange and . 
remarkable archaisms. Lack of hieroglyphic types, as said (p. 2, note 1), prevents my studying 
the very peculiar style of our decrees from the philological side; this theme invites the attention 
of specialists in Egyptian grammar.® 

Less rich are the results for the demotic text of the old Memphis decree. The demotic 
hand of the Phile text is much prettier and clearer than that of the faithful engraver of the 
Rosettana, for instance, but the sandstone of Philz did not receive and preserve the signs as 
well as the basalt of the Rosetta stone; this writing, poorly suited for monumental use in general, 
as said repeatedly, has thus here in many places become indistinct. Like all kinds of stenog- 
raphy, it needs absolute clearness and a safe context to be readable. I have given the traces in 
such passages mechanically as I could see them on the stone, and only in my translation, not on 
the plates, have I dared to restore boldly after the corresponding lines of the Rosettana. 

The two decrees can be called bilingual after their present condition or trilingual according 
to the original intention of the priests. The omission of the Greek version at Phile is not with 
certainty significant (as though, in the cataract region, the Greek-speaking element had been 
scarce enough to form an excuse for the omission of the Greek part). This tendency to save 
some part of labor by quiet omission appears too often in ancient Egypt. A good example is 
the stela of Damanhur, where the priests apparently thought they had shown their good will 
sufficiently by some wretched extracts from the hieroglyphic text, disregarding completely the 
two other versions. 


1 The engraver of the demotic Rosettana slavishly copied his extremely hastily written model on papyrus as though he had papyrus 
for his material; he did not attempt to change it anywhere to clear monumental forms. We often doubt whether he could read at all. 
Therefore, the demotic Rosettana is an extremely difficult text, on the exact philological explanation of which much remains to be done 
after the pioneer attempts of H. Brugsch, R. Revillout, and J. J. Hess. 

2 The hieroglyphic text of the Rosettana is, strange to say, one of the least treated and least understood Egy ptian texts. The 
pioneers of Egyptology turned away from it after it had furnished, in its most frequent words, the key to more promising texts. Since 
the meritorious but imperfect study of F. Chabas (L’inscription hiéroglyphique de Rosette, 1867) only the compilation of Budge (The 
Decrees of Memphis and Canopus, 1904, 3 volumes) treats rather superficially of the text, which is by no means intelligible in every word 
or sign. 
oT he most interesting side of this style seems to be that we have in those decrees the last traces of the Neo-Egyptian style of the 
New Empire, which, however, had, in Ptolemaic time, become in turn archaic and was therefore mixed more and more with the 
earlier, classical styles. Notwithstanding this, the style of the decrees remained very peculiar and quite distinct from the usual, 
purely religious, inscriptions in hieroglyphic signs. 


EDITORIAL NOTE. 


The sudden and tragic death of Professor Miiller, on July 12, 1919, while he was spending his 
vacation at the seashore at Wildwood Crest, New Jersey, has closed the work of one of the most 
eminent representatives of Oriental scholarship, known alike in Europe and America. He had 
been an indefatigable student of Egyptology since his school days at the Gymnasium at Niirn- 
berg, Bavaria, when he took up these fascinating studies as an autodidact, and he pursued them 
after his abiturium at the universities of Leipzig, Berlin, and Munich. ‘The first fruit of his labors 
appeared in the year 1893, under the title ‘“‘Europa und Asien nach agyptischen Denkmalern.” 
It was a work which at once drew the attention of the scholarly world upon the author and it 
awakened the hope that Miller would follow up the new road, which he had broken in the field 
of the vealia. In this hope no one was deceived. But Miller showed himself also capable in 
the edition of texts, when in 1899 his “Liebespoesie der alten Agypter’” appeared. In the last 
few years prior to his death he had occupied himself extensively with the Religion and the Myth- 
ology of the ancient Egyptians, the results of which studies are laid down in his ‘Egyptian 
Mythology,”’ which appeared only one year before his death. Under the auspices of the Carnegie 
Institution of Washington he was enabled to make three archeological expeditions to Egypt, the 
land of his boyhood dreams, and he was one of the last to make competent observations on some 
of the temples of the upper Nile. His plans for future scientific researches were numerous, 
and these he had often discussed with me, since for the last three years I had been a pupil of his 
and closely associated with him. During a protracted illness in the fall of 1918, Dr. Miiller had 
expressed the wish that, in case he should be unable to finish a number of his publications, their 
completion should devolve upon me. ‘Thus, after his lamentable death, his family approached 
me with the request that I should put the finishing touches on the present volume. To this I 
gladly consented, after the Carnegie Institution of Washington had approved of my doing so. 
The work was in its final stages when I took charge of it. Nothing has been added to it, although 
in some instances, I am quite sure, Dr. Miiller would have introduced some further additions. 
I have merely added the brackets in the hieroglyphic and demotic texts and elucidated more 
clearly a number of notes where some uncertainty in expression was observable. I am also 
responsible for a few restorations in the text. 

Meany Fb. Lutz, Poe 
Research Instructor in Assyriology and Egyptology 
in the University of Pennsylvania. 
(6) 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


Until rather recently it was customary among the historians, even those without popu- 
larizing tendencies, to describe the age of the Ptolemaic kings as a kind of millennium for 
Egypt. In order to strengthen this impression of bliss, that age was usually contrasted with 
the preceding time of Persian rule, which was depicted in the darkest colors possible, as a time 
of misery and cruel oppression. Even the religion of the poor Egyptians was said to have been 
touched; the good, patient, harmless people were not allowed to worship their sacred animals 
in peace. No wonder that the oppressed again and again rose in desperate revolts against the 
Persian tyranny, notwithstanding the bloody cruelty with which these struggles for freedom 
were always suppressed. Finally deliverance came by Alexander the Great. Welcomed 
enthusiastically as a divine savior by all Egypt, he inaugurated there an era of peace, prosper- 
ity, and happiness, the most brilliant~-fruit of Hellenism. Happy in religious liberty, the 
Egyptians gave themselves faithfully and willingly to the illuminating influence of Greek 
civilization ! 

We have learned more and more that those lovely fancies are untrue. As far as we know 
the Persian administration, it seems to have treated Egypt very mildly, leaving everything in 
the country as much as possible in the condition in which the Persian conquest had found it. 
It seems rather that the numerous and serious rebellions of the Egyptians were due much more 
to the lax and over-liberal administration of the Persians than to oppression; another reason 
for those rebellions may be found in the difficult class of population which we have to discuss 
below. At any rate, no religious persecutions can be proved by the monuments. ‘The calum- 
nies of cruelty and intolerance with which Cambyses, the conqueror, is covered in the reports 
of Herodotus are manifestly priestly lies of a very clumsy character. The Egyptian monu- 
ments from the Persian period show us that those foreign kings tolerated and supported the 
gods, temples, and priests of Egypt quite as much as the Macedonian and Roman rulers did 
in succeeding times. 

The pleasant picture of conditions under the Ptolemaic kings is also deceptive. It was 
too much an argumentum e silentio, based on the fact that our knowledge of the history of the 
Ptolemaic kingdom, as long as it rested completely on the Greek historians, was exclusively a 
history of the foreign relations of Egypt and of her royal family. This history, moreover, was 
confined to Alexandria, and whenever the Egyptian people were considered at all by the classi- 
cal writers, this meant only the Greek population of Alexandria. ‘The great mass of the native 
Egyptians, who by their labor and their taxes supported the court, the large armies of mercen- 
aries, the fleets, and the expensive foreign policy, are scarcely considered in the Greek authors. 
Thus we have practically what we ought to call a history of the kingdom of Alexandria rather 
than of Egypt. If the history of Paris and of London would give only incomplete histories of 
France and England, the case is infinitely worse with Alexandria and Egypt. 

If we should compare the position of Alexandria as capital of Egypt with that of modern 
Calcutta as capital of India, we should express the incongruity of the nationalities far too mildly. 


- Calcutta is, after all, an Indian city, and the recognition of the native element in the English 
: 7 


8 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


administration of India is there (as well as in the whole country) much greater than that of the 
Egyptian population was under the Ptolemaic rule. Alexandria was a piece of Greece trans- 
ferred to the mouth of the Nile, keeping zealously its un-Egyptian character; the rich finds 
preserved in the modern museum of Alexandria show that only small separate quarters of 
native Egyptians can have existed there.t Yet this Greek city absorbed all the wealth of the 
country with few returns. The kings emphasized their Macedonian blood,’ and it seems to 
have been quite an exception that the unusually gifted last queen, Cleopatra, as Plutarch tells 
us, understood the barbarous tongue of her subjects, or at least something of it. Inscriptions 
and papyri conceal, of course, the fact that a wide gulf existed between everything Greek and 
the Egyptian element, but we must not be deceived on this account. The best analogy is again 
the relation between Englishman and Hindu. ‘The brown native in ancient Egypt often used 
a Greek name and imitated the dress and manners of the ruling class;* at the same time his 
religion taught him that those aristocrats were ceremonially unclean barbarians, so that for a 
long time the contempt of the Greeks for the strange, barbarian subjects must have been recipro- 
cated. While from the inscriptions and papyri we are apt sometimes to mistake a man using 
Greek writing and a Greek name for a member of the privileged nationality, the contemporaries 
seem for a long time to have drawn the “‘color-line”’ rather strictly, and it may be said that in 
reality Egyptian and Greek mixed like oil and water.* This fact has been set forth very plainly 
by Th. Mommsen (Rémische Geschichte, V, p. 561), who correctly observed that in Egypt the 
legal superiority of the Greek race over the subjected natives was emphasized in a way un- 
paralleled in any Hellenistic country. If under the Roman rule the theoretical inferiority of 
the Egyptians to the Greeks was maintained even in the different mode of corporal punishment 
for both nationalities, we may conclude that this distinction of the two nationalities must have 
been far more rigid and more oppressive at the time when the Greeks themselves ruled in Egypt 
under the dynasty of the Lagides. The most characteristic testimony on this sharp distinction 
is the passage of the second Philze decree 10 f (page 72), which reports that Greek and Egyptian 
troops kept guard side by side “as though they belonged to the same race.”’ ‘This is mentioned 
as a new and wonderful fact. The demotic contracts state, in the case of Egyptians, their 
profession when this is different from the ordinary native occupation as farmer. With the 
foreigners, on the other hand, we find only the designation “the Greek”’ replacing the men- 
tion of the occupation. A representative of the privileged people is expected to live on a 
pension from the government under one or another pretext. 


1 For this reason Alexandria seems designated as a “fortress” (Philz decree II, line 4; see also the Buto-Stela, line 4). This seems 
to refer more to the exclusive character of the city than to her walls. 

2 Therefore, after the annexation of Egypt by the Romans, a priest of Memphis, during the first years of Augustus, mentions 
the past dynasty as mere foreigners, 7. e., as ‘the Greek kings who were on the shore of the sea towards the west, in the city ; 
whose name is Ra‘-godi’’ (i. e., Rakotis, Egyptian name for Alexandria; cp. Buto-Stela, line 4, Strabo 792, etc.). See Harris Stela, 
Reinisch, Chrestomathie, 21,1. 9. The older “‘Chronicle’’ papyrus of Paris, which speaks of ‘‘the Greeks”’ in a similar way, will be 
discussed farther down. 

’ This is believed by Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemies, 396) to have become frequent only at a later period; see the follow- 
ing note. I have no gathered data on this question, which is not quite identical with that of the real assimilation of both races. 

4 F. Preisigke, in Schriften der wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft in Strassburg, 19, p. 26, uses the above expression. ‘The fusion of both 
races progressed very rapidly only when Christianity spread in Egypt; it may have begun on a smaller scale under the later Ptolemies. 
Mahaffy (Empire of the Ptol.) tries to trace its beginnings to Ptolemy VII (p. 359 foll.), whom he believes to have favored the natives, 
and its progress under Ptolemy IX (p. 396). See the note above. Below we shall trace it to a slightly earlier time. For the first 
150 years of Greek dominion, however, the above characterization may be fully accepted. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 2) 


It is also true that the Ptolemies did not rule the country in a very paternal way. ‘They 
exploited the poor natives without mercy. While it must be admitted that the native rulers in 
ancient time never had made the burden of the Egyptian peasants too light, the Ptolemaic 
kings seem to have reached the greatest perfection in extorting the highest possible amount of 
taxation (Mommsen, 560). It is questionable, indeed, whether these burdens would have 
driven the patient crowds to serious insurrections. Of course, the religion of the natives never 
was touched, because religious intolerance nowhere existed in heathenism; only the mono- 
theistic religions introduced it. ‘The privileges of the temples and the priests were consider- 
ably limited under the Ptolemies; yet religious as the Egyptians were (in their own way, so 
different from what we now call piety), this would hardly have roused the masses of Egypt to 
insurrection. Nor have we evidence that the personal despotism of the kings and their vices 
ever had this effect. Such matters touched only the population of Alexandria. ‘The native 
element does not seem to have participated much in the numerous civil wars which later were 
fought for the succession to the throne; it left these to the Graco-Macedonian population, 
which had practical interest in those struggles, 7. e., in their spoils." 

In general, it must be admitted that the Egyptians were unwarlike to cowardice; 
just as Strabo (p. 819) characterized them as being patient, and used to being dominated by 
foreigners, long centuries before the Persians and Greeks ruled in the Nile land. Still, we must 
‘not exaggerate this docility beyond measure. ‘There were, at any rate, some elements among 
the Egyptians which were not quite as manageable as the ordinary peasants, namely, a privi- 
leged class, the warriors. 

We do not know very much as to this class of population. It is not necessary to discuss 
here the military institutions of the Egyptians from the earliest time. On the monuments 
speaking of Pharaoh’s troops we read mostly of mercenaries who also served as police whenever 
they were not needed abroad. ‘They begin with the negro troops of the sixth dynasty; sub- 
sequently all possible nations of Africa, Asia, and Europe contributed to these troops. The 
soldiers of Egyptian blood are not so conspicuous; they are less well treated and in earlier time 
often are employed in peace, not only as policemen but as common royal workingmen, even at 
the hardest kind of public work.’ 

We know especially little about the various classes of native soldiers in the Middle Empire. 
According to their name, we should assume “the followers” (#msw) to be specially privileged 
among them, possibly as doing personal service to the king (?); how they were distinguished 





1 A very interesting illustration is the quotation from Polybius given by Strabo, 17, 1 (791), characterizing the native population 
of Alexandria in the second century A. D. as gvdov dfdxal modirixév “‘a race sharp (-witted) and taking interest in political matters.” 
This characterization is, at first sight, very strange, because those words seem to fit only the Greek Alexandrines. Therefore, emenda- 
tions were proposed to alter the sense into the contrary, such as dzodurixdy (see C. Miiller’s edition of Strabo)—a very doubtful word, 
which does not harmonize in idea with the other designation ‘‘sharp, quick-witted.’’ After thinking for a while of the emendation 
ovdty modtiKov, Which is not much more satisfactory, I believe that the passage expressed, in its original setting, the surprise of Polybius 
that the Alexandrines of Egyptian race were somewhat different from the dull and apathetic mass of the other Egyptian natives. 
Originally, Polybius, in all probability, added some limiting words, at least that their number made them an element without great 
influence in politics. In the present form, the passage does not so well show that an exception confirming the general rule was meant, 
but I now feel sure of this sense. 

2 E. g.,on the famous representation of the transportation of the colossal] statue (Newberry, El-Bersheh, I, pl. 15), the second row of 
the people pulling the statue consists exclusively of soldiers, as their costume and the inscription ‘‘the young people (z'mw) of the soldiers 
(‘k;wtyw) of the hare nome” shows. When we find foreign mercenaries mentioned at such public works, they do not pull stones, as some 
Egyptologists have thought, but superintend the work as policemen only and overseers, as saidabove. Cp. L. D. III, 140¢, 2, 17, 18, ete. 


10 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


from the soldiers called mnftyw is not clear, because the latter name seems to begin soon to be 
used vaguely.1. We find then “the hereditary troop of the soldiers which is (always) ready”’ 
(m tpt—‘)* first mentioned under one of the later kings of the twelfth dynasty (Senwosret ITI, 
cp. Naville Bubastis, pl. 34a, 8). Their name means: the people who inherit with certain 
privileges the duty to serve in war time, probably also in peace on certain occasions. ‘Thus they 
correspond, e. g., to the Timariots in the Turkish state. The nstitution seems to have been 
new then, because the inscription explains it still. In the New Empire we find “the hereditary 
soldiery’’ mentioned very often. From Pap. Sallier I, 7, 3, we learn that the “stable-owner”’ 
hry—h(w), represented the higher class of the “hereditary troops.’’ It is said there: “If his 
horse(s) leave him (so that he is) afoot, he is taken to the hereditary class,” 7. e., here the infan- 
try. It is not expressly stated that the scenes of conscription, like Mzss. Frang. V, 598, “the 
mustering of young recruits,’’ where the scribe “was teaching everybody his duties of the 
whole army,”’ refer to the “hereditary soldiers,’’ but this is most probable.* In these scenes 
they do not appear with arms; the representations in Medinet Habi (Rosellini, Mon. Stor. 125 
=Champollion, Mon. 218) show that the royal armory handed those out to the soldiers in 
time of war. From the Karnak inscription of Haremheb, line 25 (see my Egyptological 
Researches I, pl. 93), we learn that the soldiers of all Egypt were divided into two big “classes” 
(s}; not to be confounded with the small “classes,’’ which correspond with our regiments), so 
that the division into the so-called Kalasirians and H(?)ermotybians (Herodotus, II, 164) seems 
to go back to the eighteenth dynasty at least. Herodotus and other Greeks describe the 
privileges of the soldiers as consisting in freedom from taxation and a uniform fief of arable 
land.® According to the inscriptions, there was no caste system connected with this. It 
seems that the eldest son inherited the father’s occupation and, evidently, the fief of land; the 
other children were free to choose their vocation and usually sought it outside of the military 
service.© When there was no suitable heir to the military position, a successor was nominated 
by the government. Probably it was not difficult to find an applicant from the ranks of the 
peasant class for the use of a fief of very desirable ground. According to the Greek writers, 
nevertheless, in their time, the soldiers seem to have felt themselves to be a separate class of 





1 FE. g., a prince of Elephantine (Rec. Trav. X, 188, etc.) furnished mnftyw to the king ‘‘to overthrow his enemies.”’ ‘This makes us 
think of Nubian troops among these and makes it doubtful whether that expression marks a fixed military class even in the Middle 
Empire. In the same period we find the designation ‘;wty “the warrior’’ (corresponding closely to the Greek designation udxtuos) 
as profession, e. g., Garstang, Burial Customs, p. 191, etc.; see above on Newberry, El-Bersheh I, 15. 

? Literally “from that which is on the hand.’’ This expression seems to be explained as in the parallel English idiom, 7. e., of 
readiness at the calling of the king, less probably of the fact that those soldiers were bound to their place. 

3 See de Morgan, Catalogue I, 120, “the stable-owners and officer-men (sw-snn/) of the hereditary class” in parallelism. Leyden, 
Pap. D. 132 (Moller, Hieratische Lesestiicke III, 14), 1. 15: ‘‘the officers (suny) of the soldiers of Pharaoh and his cavalry.” So sunny 
seems to be limited to the charioteers. When we find so often the designation of the hereditary soldiers as royal, as, e. g., Pap. 
Bologna, I, 14, “the hereditary force (#}—y“‘yt) of Pharaoh”’, this is no superfluous addition. E.g., L. D. III, 153, 13 “‘the officers of 
the hereditary force (yw‘t) [from] the lands of Pharaoh’’; similarly line 17 “from the land of Pharaoh.’”’ The contrastis furnished by 
Pap. Anastasi IV, 8 (Moller III, 5) “‘mustering soldiers (and) cavalry of the temples (their) serfs (and ?) youths at the command of 
the officers of His Majesty.’ J. e., the serfs of the temples sometimes were exempted from military service, sometimes a certain 
number of them were demanded for the Army, and even horses for the war chariots had to be furnished by the priests. Military 
service depended also in this case on land tenure. 

4 The pictures (ibid. 228, 288) ought not to have been explained as recruiting scenes; they represent the feeding at festivals of 
soldiers commanded to serve near the king. Here they are called ninf(y)tyw. See note 1, on the vagueness of this expression. 

5 In dynasty 18 special gifts of fields are given to officers, as a reward for preeminent bravery, L. D. III, 12d, 21. Consequently, 
the fiefs can not always have been of uniform size at that time. 

® Diodorus I, 73, seems to assume that all children of soldiers entered on the father’s profession, a proof that he had little 
knowledge of the ancient conditions. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 11 


population, more than we should conclude from the above-described conditions; they formed 
_ thus a certain nobility, owing to their privileges and their esprit de corps. 

This may be due partly to the fact that the Egyptian kings (from dynasty 20 on?) had | 
settled foreign soldiers, principally Libyans, on the vacant military fiefs. Although inter- 
marrying freely with the Egyptians and thus soon losing their racial characteristics and their 
foreign language, those soldiers still felt themselves to be distinct from the ordinary Egyptians. 
Their officers formed a still higher nobility and tried to rule over whole districts, which partly 
may have been given to them as royal fiefs in serfs, partly may have been usurped. The 
Pharaohs of later time had to fight much with these disobedient vassals, whom we find repeatedly 
ruling as independently as the medieval European dukes and counts. ‘The termination of this 
often anarchic condition by Psammetichus’s suppression of the “dodekarchy,’’’ 7. e., the many 
small independent principalities, was still well remembered in the time of Herodotus (II, 147). 
He seems to give a correct tradition in describing how the royal government found in foreign 
mercenaries the best support against those unruly vassals; those nobles in.their turn must have 
sought the favor of the hereditary soldiers by increasing their privileges. ‘This development 
seems to explain why the soldiers in the later period of Egyptian history showed more pride 
than during the golden time of Egyptian conquests and held a more esteemed position in the 
state. Their history presents thus a certain analogy to that of the Mamluk nobility of medieval 
Egypt. 

The fancifully exaggerated report that 240,000 (!) soldiers emigrated to Ethiopia (Herod- 
otus, II, 30) when their privileges were shortened, and the not very clearly stated part which 
they had in dethroning King Apries, etc., again demonstrates that they continued to form 
a difficult element, even under the strongly centralized twenty-sixth dynasty. The Persians 
apparently left their prerogatives as much as possible untouched. I ascribe the endless revolu- 
tions which the Persians had to face in Egypt principally to this class of the population, as said 
above (p. 7); unfortunately we have no detailed information on any of those revolutions. 
If I am right, then the conservatism with which the Persian government treated their Egyptian 
province seems to have been the principal reason for their difficulties with the Egyptians. 

Notwithstanding all these experiences, the Persians transmitted those conditions to their 
Greek successors, the Ptolemies. Under these we still have at least considerable remnants of 
the old system of the waxipor, 7. e., “those fit for fighting,” the remu-gongen (7. e., early rmiw 
gnqnw), which is the rare Egyptian name for “ soldiers,’ according to the Rosetta stone, demotic 
line 11. We shall find below the strange fact that the Ptolemaic hieroglyphic inscriptions lack 
a fixed name for them; the various words for ‘“‘ warriors” which they employ are so vague that 
they can be applied also to the privileged settled soldiers of Macedonian and Greek descent, 
to mercenaries, and are even more ambiguous (cp. p. 60, note 6; p. 72, note 7). 

In general, we again know little as to the native soldiers in the time of the Ptolemies. On 
the treatment of this class see especially P. M. Meyer, Das Heerwesen der Griechen und Romer 
in Aegypten, 1900; Jean Lesquier, Les institutions malitatres de l’ Egypte sous les Lagides, 1911. 
For this we have, unfortunately, material only from the time after our two decrees, when 
probably considerable changes had taken place. We notice, then, above all, that the name 





1 Twelve is merely a symbolical number. At most times the number of principalities must have been larger. 


12 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


uaxtuor is no longer strictly limited to the native Egyptian soldiers; it is applied also to “Greek 
machimot.”  WKgyptians are then called expressly “Egyptian machimoi” and play a much 
smaller part than before, it seems.' Probably the Ptolemies, after the unfortunate experiences 
of the great revolution, had filled the vacant soldier fiefs with Greeks in order to eliminate 
gradually that dangerous native class. y | 

We should expect that the soldiers, claiming to be superior to the cowardly serf-class of 
the peasants, rather lived from their fields by subletting them to the peasants, but it remains 
to be examined whether the lots of the soldiers as described by Herodotus (II, 168, “12 Arures’’) 
allowed this plan, which would agree so well with Oriental manners. The Greek papyrus 63 
of the Louvre (Notices et extr. des manuscr., XVIII, p. 360) speaks of the economic condition of 
the soldiers under Ptolemy Euergetes II. (Cp. Lumbroso, L’économie politique, 229.2) ‘This 
petition describes the warriors as (l. 87) “in the city night and day, overworked with their 
duties” (Aerovpyiar) (1. 100). “Of the people (Aaoi) dwelling in the villages, the majority, 
driven by bitter need, must work and earn a living; but many of those connected with the army 
(rev év TH oTpaTiwTiK@® epouevwy) can not live from the state appointments. Some of the 
machimoi, rather the majority, can not with their own labor procure from their own lot (é 
Tov idiov kAnpous alroupyeiv) enough’”’ and must live over the winter by borrowing money. They 
have not even enough seed for their fields (1. 110). 

Unfortunately, it is not clear how all these gloomy descriptions apply to the native warriors. 
The “‘people”’ (Aaot) ought to be distinguished from them according to the ordinary use of this 
word (cp. below on Rosetta, |. 12), and indeed (lines 132, 133) we find “‘the poor people and the 
machimot.”’ But that petition does not seem to make this distinction regularly. Finally, the 
needy warriors there (in 165 B. C.) appear to be largely Greeks, accord ng to what has been 
observed above. ‘Therefore we are in doubt whether those complaints may be taken as a 
description of the native warrior’s life. Granting all this and admitting the petition to move in 
great exaggerations, nevertheless we may conclude that the warriors always had only a very 
moderate existence under the Ptolemies. We suspect also that not much remained of the 
freedom from taxation which they still had enjoyed under the Persians, but we have no certain 
data on this point.* 

It is questionable how often the Ptolemies armed the native warriors. I should not press 
the passage of Polybius (V, 107), which we shall discuss below, so far as to imply that, up to the 
year 217’ B.C., they never had been used practically. It would be strange if the first three 
kings of the Macedonian dynasty had not needed them in their numerous wars. Diodorus 
(XIX, 80) refers to an employment of the natives in war under the first Ptolemy in a rather 
credible way. Still we may infer from Polybius that they were not used regularly and had not 
been called to arms for some time; the special necessity of an unusually dangerous attack on 








1J. Lesquier, p. 10, 105, Pap. Tebtunis, I, Index. 

2 I found the edition needing many corrections, after the facsimile, pl. 6, but do not have the book now at hand. 

3 The Mendes stela (1. 14) reports that the king Ptolemy selected as pages or guards for the sacred ram or goat of Mendes “‘of the 
fine youths from the warriors (mnftyw, see p. 38) of Egypt, the best ¢p(y)w from the children . . . ” ‘This.looks as though the 
wealthier temples had to contribute something for the support of the warrior families under such pretexts of an honorary employment. 
Such a pretext for a sinecure would be more natural with the aristocracy of Macedonian blood, but would these people send their 
children to the temples of the native gods for such services? 

‘For practical reasons I have throughout this book, as much as possible, adopted the chronology given by Mahaffy, The Empire 
of the Ptolemies, without touching various uncertainties. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 13 


Egypt forced Ptolemy IV. not to overlook any means of defense and to resort to that force. If 
this had not been done for a longer time, the suspicion arises that those warriors beforehand had 
proved to be a dangerous element among the natives; they may have already given some 
trouble to the first three Ptolemaic kings. 

At any rate, the number of the native warriors must have been moderate. Wedonot take 
seriously the fanciful numbers of Herodotus (II, 165-166: still 410,000 remaining after the emi- 
gration of 240,000 to Ethiopia!) and Diodorus I, 54 (650,000, a number taken from Herodotus 
without criticism!). Polybius gives their total as 20,000 at the battle of Raphia, where Ptolemy 
IV. made that fatal mistake of gathering them. It is true, we can not guarantee that those 
20,000 represented the whole number. Ptolemy IV. might have called only a part to arms, 
mistrusting them from the beginning. ‘The great probability remains, even under this assump- 
tion, that their number did not reach that of the regular Macedonian and Greek soldiers. So, 
while it is not probable that the native warriors remained constantly quiet and loyal for the 
whole first century of Macedonian dominion, yet their limited number and their scattering 
over the whole country seem to have enabled the powerful first three Ptolemies to keep them 
under control. 

Various reasons increased their dangerous character under Ptolemy IV., Philopator, a king 
with whom, in general, a certain decadence of the flourishing Lagide state seems to begin. 
Polybius, of whom we possess a very valuable fragment on the outbreak of the great revolution 
(V, 107), attributes the reason principally to that mistake of gathering those natives for the 
battle at Raphia, 217 B.C. His report runs thus: 


To Ptolemy soon then after those times it happened 


IIrov\euaiw ye unv ev0éws amd Tov’TwWY THD 
that the war against (the) Egyptians broke out. 


Katpwav avveBawe yiyvecbairov mpos Aiyumtious 
7 O\ELOV. 


‘O yap mpoepnucvos Bactreds KaborXicas 
tous Aiyumtious ért tov mpos 'Avtioxov mo\Euov 
Tpos mev TO Tapov évdEexouévws EBovrEVTAaTO, TOU 
6€ péANoVTOS HoTOX GE. 

Ppovnuaticbevtes yap ek TOV Tepl ‘Padiay 
TPOTEPHUATOS OVKETL TO TPOT TAaTTOMEVOY oioL TE 
joav vmouevery, adr éefynrovv Hyeuova kal 
Tpocwrov ws ixavol PBonbeiv bytes abrois. 
Kat 6 Tédos (!) éxolnoay od pera ToNdy xpovor (! ) 


For the aforementioned king by arming the Egyp- 
tians for the war against Antiochus followed a plan 
practical for the moment, but he made a mistake for 
the future time. 


Becoming namely presumptuous by their success 
at Raphia,! they were no longer able to obey orders? 
but sought a leader and a pretext, as people able to help 
themselves. Which thing they finally (!) did, not 
after a long time (!). 


We see here that Polybius does not acknowledge that those Egyptians had a real complaint; 


they ought to have been satisfied with the blessings of the Ptolemaic government, according 
to his opinion. The national feeling of this Greek author, who viewed that best one of the 
Hellenistic states with complacency and pride, is plainly visible here. Unfortunately, his 
report as to finding a leader and “‘pretext’”’ (!) is lost. The latter expression, evidently, points 
to something which Polybius considered as not too unjust against the Egyptians or too grave a 
matter. The probability is that some administrative measure infringing on the rights or 
livelihood of the warrior class furnished that “‘pretext’’; certainly it would appear, if we knew 











1 So their phalanx must have played a more important part in that victory than the extant reports on that battle manifest. 
2 This expression (‘‘what was imposed on them’”’) points to regular duties or dues demanded by the state. 


14 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


it, much more serious to us than to Polybius. As a representative of the last century of Greek 
independence, he was too much of an aristocrat to understand demands of the lower classes in 
general. Polybius, in Book XIV, 12, returns to that revolution and mentions it in a very 
similar way. He describes the profligate life of Philopator after his victory over Antiochus of 
Syria and continues: 


"Owe 5€ more Biacbels bTd TaV TpayyaTwr But at some near time, forced by the circumstances (!), 
éverrecev eis TOV viv dedn\wuevoy TOdEUOV. he fell into the here-mentioned war. 


This again sounds like exonerating the king and is in such contrast with the previous 
description of his tyranny that we can not assume the numerous personal faults of the king to be 
held by Polybius to be responsible for the rebellion.! As something which might have 
“happened” (cuvéBaue, évérece) also to a better king, it would again best be understood of some 
administrative measure based on the system of government used by his predecessors. ‘This 
lenient judgment of the historian would seem to include even new taxes as something for which 
the subject class of natives ought not to have raised rebellion. If those natives remonstrated 
or demanded reforms, I fear even as sober a mind as Polybius would have considered this as 
unbecoming (according to Greek thinking) to the native subjects of the Hellenistic states. At 
present, however, it is impossible to find anything positive on that “pretext” of the machimot. 

We suspect that the forced reforms mentioned in the decree of Rosetta include the removal 
of that “‘pretext,’’ but there is nothing among the enumeration of these reforms which refers to 
the native soldiers in special. This could be explained by the assumption that the odious 
measure which furnished the “‘pretext’”’ might have been withdrawn directly under Ptolemy IV., 
Philopator—not a very probable explanation, according to what we know of his character. It 
seems more plausible that those special concessions are covered by the general statement of 
line 12 of the Greek text, “from the revenues and taxes existing in Egypt he remitted some com- 
pletely and reduced (kexov¢ixev) others.’’ ‘The redactor of the decree, evidently, saw that the 
detailed description of those concessions, implying a considerable loss of royal prestige, would 
be tactless. That he had the warriors specially in mind in referring to those reforms becomes 
evident from the following clause: ‘“‘in order that both the people (6 vaés, see above) and all the 
others be prosperous.’ ‘These “others’’ mean hardly the higher classes, such as Greek or 
Egyptian priests; in the first place those undeserving rebels, the warriors, are in the mind of 
the writer. 

In both passages of Polybius the revolution is said to have followed rather soon after the 
battle of Raphia, 217-216 B. C. Not immediately, as we see from the lapse of time necessary 
for seeking a “pretext” and a leader. This points to the facts that those soldiers in time of 
peace were widely scattered and that the peculiar geography of Egypt, a narrow country, widely 
extending in one direction, made possible a comparatively slow process of communication 
between the dissatisfied elements after their disbanding. Thus the plotting of the revolution 
ought to have taken some time. On the other hand, the repeated statement of Polybius that — 
the outbreak came not very long after that battle of Raphia, 7. e., after 216 B. C. (year 6 of the 

















1 As the confused statement of Diodorus (28, 15) would suggest. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 15 


king?) sounds like a hint at an interval of not more than two or at the most three years. Yet 
it seems to be an erroneous statement; the interval evidently was longer: 

We have, fortunately, a very valuable and precise monumental statement in the two 
hieroglyphic inscriptions describing the construction of the temple of Edfu.? Both texts state 
that the great court gates were under construction “until (r-mmn) the year 16 of His Majesty”’ 
(z. e., Philopator, whose name has been mentioned before). Then came the disturbance 
(hnw) which broke out afterwards (r[variant ’w] pr hr s}). There rebelled (bin) godless 
(lit. ignorant, know-nothing) people (Amw) in the southern half (m gs hnt) [addition in B.: and 
there stopped the work in the seat of the gods as there was violence (r dudn?) in the southern 
part] until (frt-r, nfrt--w) year 19 of the son of the Sun, the heir of the Gods Fatherloving, 
chosen by Ptah, etc., Ptolemy, beloved of Ptah, the blessed defunct, the God Epiphanes 
[repetitious addition in A.: ... the son of the Sun, Ptolemy, everliving, beloved of Ptah, the 
kind god*] who (A.) pacified the land (sgrf t;) and conquered those rebelling against him (dr 
binw-f); [variant in B.: the strong one (z/t), the king who conquered the disturbance in the 
whole land, dr hnn r t; zr-f]. 

A still later date would, at first sight, seem to be given in the first Turin papyrus referring 
to a lawsuit about a house (Pap. Taurin., ed. Peyron, I, 5, line 29-30): rov éavrov rarépa werj Oat 
éx Tns Avooro\ews MeO’ éETéepwv oTpatwwray eis To’s dvw TOTOUS év TH Yevouevn Tapaxh él TOU TaTpos 
Tov Bacitewr, Oeov 'Exipavois: “‘that his father had departed from Thebes with other soldiers 
’ to the regions higher up in the disturbance which broke out under the father of the kings, 
the God Epiphanes.”’ Following this the lawyer counts for the time which the house of that 
Greek soldier had remained deserted, the full 24 years of Epiphanes, so that the passage could 
be interpreted as though the revolution had broken out at the death of Ptolemy Philopator.‘ 
The above is, however, only an approximate statement. It seems that the calculation of the 
defendant tried to shorten the number of years, and the plaintiff in repeating that calculation 
could well afford to overlook a couple of years under Philopator. The general reluctance 
against speaking more than was absolutely necessary of that sad episode, a reluctance which 
we can observe throughout the Rosetta decree, seems to be noticeable also here, in this over- 
looking of some time under Ptolemy IV. That these years must not be overlooked by the 
historian is shown by Rosettana 27, rods adnynoapeévous Tav atooTayTwy érl Tov éavTOU TaTpos: 
“the leaders of those who had fallen away under his father,’ and that Epiphanes (27-28) pun- 
ished them, “taking vengeance on behalf of his father” (éraytvwy r@ warpi; this remark is 
lacking in the demotic text). See also the second decree of Phil (line 11), if my restoration 
“his father’’ is right. These hints that already Philopator had long and hard fights with the 





1 As pointed out in the text of Polybius, quoted above, p. 13, the expressions “‘finally’’ and ‘‘not after a long time’’ do not har- 
monize. I hesitate to decide whether this negligent style can be attributed to Polybius himself, whose language is very precise 
wherever we are sure of the original text. I suspect here rather an instance of hasty redaction by the epitomizer of Polybius. Thus 
it becomes probable that the original form of the text was much fuller and that it defined—above all—the space of time between the 
battle of Raphia and the revolution much better than in the extant form. 

2A. Duemichen, Tempelinschriften, I, 95 (=Aeg. Zeitschr., 1878, 44; Brugsch, Thesaurus, 1330). B. Aeg. Zeitschr., 1870, pl. II 
(p. 1 foll.) =Brugsch, Thesaurus, 1334. 

3 P-nir mnh. ‘This title usually expresses Kuergetes, but here the surname of Epiphanes, Evxdpicros. This looks like an almost 
inoredible error, 7. e., a translation of the Greek expression without knowledge of the official hieroglyphic title. We should suppose 
that this title was known even to the most ignorant priestly writer, but the error can hardly be explained away. 

4 Thus understood it, e. g., Revillout, Revue Arch., 1877, 326, “in the moment of the death of Philopator after the Greeks 
themselves’’(!). Similarly Chrestomathie Démotique, XCII. 


16 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


rebels agree well with the preceding general statements of Polybius. The texts of Edfu, on 
the other hand, leave only the years 16 and 17 and a part of the year 18 for the duration of the 
revolution, so far as it fell under Philopator. We should have expected a somewhat longer 
time, and the expression of Polybius “soon”’ (after the battle of Raphia) appears to us_ 
as a careless designation for a space of ten years after that battle. In defense of Polybius’ 
“soon,’’ we might assume that the revolution started in Lower Egypt some time before the 
sixteenth year. This is quite possible, because the majority of the machimoi ought to have 
been settled in Lower Egypt; also the hard fights in the Delta, as described in the Rosetta 
inscription, seem to confirm their frequency there. It does not seem, however, that by seeing 
in the date of the sixteenth year merely the extension of the revolution to Upper Egypt and by 
assuming even isolated previous revolutionary movements in this part of the country, we can 
save much of the authority of Polybius. A year more or less will not alter the discrepancy 
materially. On the other hand, it must be repeated that the approximate statement of the 
Turin papyrus does not warrant that the Greek soldiers at Thebes stayed there for over two 
years after the revolution had seized the country farther south, around Edfu.! 

Polybius (XIV, 12) complains of the difficulty in following the war in detail, giving the 
general characterization that it was remarkable only for the cruelty and faithlessness shown 
by both sides, but presented no larger regular battle on land or sea or siege. Comparing this 
statement with the epigraphic reports on the siege of Lykopolis, etc., we must suspect that the 
above characterization may be somewhat exaggerated and caused by regard for readers in 
Greece proper. A man not very well acquainted with the geography of Egypt would find it 
quite difficult to follow (through the confusing nomenclature of the Greeks) the endless 
settlements of Egypt.? Polybius may be right, however, that the war was of a peculiar 
type. Judging from the unwarlike, malicious, and perfidious character of the Egyptians and 
the character of their country, I believe that the rebellion did not cause a general rising of the 
whole Egyptian population against the hated foreigners through the whole country at once. 
Where the native warriors could assemble in considerable numbers, the rebellion, indeed, may 
well have assumed the character of a general rising of all natives. In other places, however, 
those open belligerents, the hereditary warriors, according to their small number, may have 
formed only roving bands, massacring and plundering the Greeks here and there’ and retiring 
to the small islands in the Delta or, in the South, to the desert mountains when larger bodies 
of royal troops appeared. The populace probably joined them in plundering and murdering 
the foreigners where it could be done safely. When regular troops approached, only the 
guiltiest, I believe, withdrew to the strongholds of the machimoi; the majority subjected them- 
selves again to the Greek authorities whenever these had any considerable number of soldiers, 
proclaimed their unshaken loyalty to the royal house, and denounced eagerly their personal 








1 Tf we can use the Apis inscriptions collected by Brugsch, Aeg. Zeitschr., 1884, 127 (a rather doubtful material, I fear), we should 
know that an Apis from a place in “the territory of Thebes,”’ 7. e., the Thebais, called P—ha or Ha (Brugsch, 1.1. 129, identifies it with 
Denderah, which is very improbable; it may be a mere village) was brought to Memphis about 5 years before the enthronement of 
Epiphanes. This presupposes that Middle and Upper Egypt were under control of the Greek government about the year 12 to 13 
of Philopator, a good confirmation of the Edfu text against Polybius’ remark about the time of the outbreak. 

2 Polybius, nevertheless, must have given some account of the war. For the above reasons, however, this report was, it seems, - 
omitted by the copyists of the manuscripts of his history. European readers found too little interest in it. 

3 In Pap. London, II, ed. Forshall, a Greek, who died during the revolution, is mentioned. ‘The way in which he died is not 
defined, because it did not appear loyal to speak too much of that sad time, as we have seen repeatedly. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 17 


enemies as rebels. Such a condition of irregular warfare is betrayed, indeed, by the mention 
of military guards, which, apparently, had to be distributed through the loyal parts of Egypt to 
protect life and property of loyal subjects (see Phila decree II, line rod to f). We need not 
follow too literally our priestly historian, who clumsily limits those guards to the protection of 
the temples and priests. The most interesting light on the warfare is thrown when he claims 
(line roe) that the guards against the rebels could also be recruited from native Egyptians, even 
from “soldiers,” z. e., from those who had deserted from the ranks of the machimoi. We may, 
perhaps, apply this condition more to the later period of the insurrection, when the cause of the 
insurgents was in the decline and the weakness of the Egyptian character would manifest itself 
very readily. In the first years, 7. e., in the reign of Philopator, the rising of the natives must 
have been more general, to judge from the results of the revolution. Furthermore, we are 
warned also against underestimating its importance by the way in which Polybius mentions it. 
He reveals its very serious character by calling it a regular “war’’ (see p. 13). We must not 
take too seriously the expression rapaxy: “disturbance, disorder’’ (with the exact Egyptian 
equivalent hun, hnw), which later was used officially for that period. It is a euphemistic word 
and seeks to minimize the seriousness of the national uprising.’ 

At any rate, we may be sure that the greatest part of Egypt was in the hands of the insur- 
gents during the first years of Ptolemy Epiphanes. Conditions were worst then, when the 
guardians of the royal child fought among themselves for the control of the government, 7. e., 
for possession of the treasury in Alexandria, and when the adjoining kings attacked the Ptole- 
maic provinces outside of Egypt. It seems that the Egyptian government concentrated its 
whole power on the defense of the Syrian provinces against the Seleucidan attack, a proof that 
it considered the military power of the insurgents as far inferior to that of Antiochus. This 
meant the temporary abandonment of the largest part of Egypt. We must ask whether much 
ground could be maintained outside of Alexandria “in the nomes”’ (as Ros. hierogl. 1, demot. 16, 
Phils II, od, characterizes the interior country) during the most critical time.” Unfortunately 
we have no knowledge what city in the Delta at that time possessed a Greek population large 
enough to maintain itself against the natives.* It would be very interesting to know something 
about the fate of the exclusively Greek cities higher up, e. g., about the colony Ptolemais. 
Most likely their whole Greek population had to flee northward. 

It was during that critical time that the government thought it wise to offer to the natives 
great reforms and alleviations, évexa tov rv Aiyurrov eis evdlay ayayetv (Rosetta to give, |. 11) “for 
bringing Egypt to a quiet condition,’ demotic text (1. 7), “‘to create (e t(y)-hpr) quietness’ 











1 See this expression already, Ros. Greek 19. For the hieroglyphic equivalent cp. the foundation texts of Edfu. The demotic 
expression tht, thth (Ros. 11). 

2 A recollection of this condition, Diodorus, XXVIII, 15: (Ptolemy V) ‘‘was hated by the Egyptians and was in danger of losing 
his kingdom” (éxvdbveuce 5& &roBadeiv thy Baotdelav). Only Diodorus, in his usual confused way, connects this danger with the 
ungrateful execution of the guardian Aristomenes (about which the natives certainly did not care) and thus leads to a wrong chro- 
nology, etc. See also the statement of a fragmentary extract from Polybius in Angelo May, Script. vet. nov. coll., II, 544: 
“Ptolemy by a revolution was nearly driven out of the country’ (oAiyou wey twos e&€recer). 

3Tt is difficult to draw a conclusion from the stela of a Syrian (?) policeman Kha‘—hap, who according to the calculations of L. 
Stern (Aeg. Zeitschr. 1884, 108), died in Memphis “‘in the fifth month of the second year,” 7.e.,of Epiphanes. That,in this biographic 
notice, he leaves it to the reader to supply the names of the kings under whom he lived is very common in such inscriptions and 
must not be explained as caution. The Asiatic population of Egypt always seems to have considered itself as superior to the native 
Egyptians and more akin to the Greeks, so we could not well expect the man in question to have sided with the insurgents. 

4The old meaning of this causative formation, originally ‘‘quieting,’’ seems to be lost (as in Coptic sgraht, sgreht: quietness) or is, 
at least, uncertain. 


18 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN 


REVOLUTION. 


(mt-sgrh) in Egypt’’—a very remarkable confession by an inscription in the official style. 
After a remark on liberality to the Greek troops (see below), the same inscription informs us: 


(12) amo trav brapxovoay 
év AiylirTw mpocddwv xa 
popod\oyl@v, Twas pev eis 
TéX\os adnKkev, GAdas de 
Kekougdikev, Ows 6 TE QOS 
kal of &\Aou wavtes €v (13) 
evOnvia wow él THs EavTOU 
Baoctretas. 


Of the revenues and taxes existing 
(before) in Egypt he abandoned 
some entirely and lightened others 
in order that both the (ordinary?) 
people® and the whole rest (!) be 
in prosperity under his reign. 


DEMOTIC TEXT (I. 7). 
The taxation (ity) (and) revenue 
(skr)! which had been continuing 
(‘h‘)*in Egypt, he had taken parts 
(ps?) from them (and) he had 
abandoned them entirely (z:'z) to 
make the people (? see below) 
and all the other men to be well 
(off) at the time of his reign. 


See above on the excessive caution manifested in these reluctant allusions to the rebellion 
and on the distinction of two classes of population which seems to contain a hint at the 
warriors. The great difficulty is that the word of the demotic version, which corresponds 
with the Greek ads, is ambiguous, as it may mean “multitude, people,” or “‘soldiers.”’ See 
below on Philae II, 17e, etc., about the difficulty that both Egyptian versions lacked a clear 
distinction between those two expressions. The possibility that the demotic writer may have 
thought here of the native warriors as the element first to be placated is increased by the hiero- 
glyphic version (Damanhur, 12). It has “mmnft-soldiers,”’ 7. e.,a word which ought to designate 
even a privileged soldier class (p. 10; cp. p. 60). The hieroglyphic version, as usual, follows the 
demotic and seeks to make its sense more distinct; it seems here a valuable guide, although its 
strong disfigurement by the illiterate engraver would not exclude the possibility of connecting 
that expression “mnft-soldiers’’ with the Greek 6 \ads instead of with “the rest.” 

Even more important seems the next concession (Greek, line 13): 


DEMOTIC TEXT (I. 8.) 


Ta TE Baoittka OperAnuata & 
, = 5 oe. 4 / 
Tpotwdetdov ol ev TH Aly UTTH 
Kal ol €v TH AotTH PBacirela 
avtov d6vTa wo\\Ga TH TANOGEL 

adnkev. 


and the debts due to the govern- 
ment which still were owed by the 
inhabitants of Egypt and of the 
rest of his kingdom, he remitted, 
(although) being a great amount. 


of the king which owed the Egyp- 
tians and all those in his kingdom, 
amounting to (’r) a great figure, 
he abandoned to them. 


In connection with this, a far-reaching amnesty to criminals was granted, liberty to those 
imprisoned and a remission of private debts of long standing (1. 14) ; this latter concession meant, 
likewise, a freeing from imprisonment in many cases.’ 

The inscription passes over to the concessions to the priests, which are rather moderate, I 
think. Some modern writers exaggerate their importance in order to prove that the Ptolemaic 
government wanted to win the pious masses first by benefits to their gods and priests. Whoso- 
ever is not deceived by the prominence which the priests, of course, must give to their special 
grants, and looks at the practical meaning of these grants, will judge more soberly. I think an 
unprejudiced examination will not confirm the belief that the Egyptian rebels had fought in any 
religious interest, for their gods and temples. The prominence given by the priests to their 

1 This word means in Coptic: “‘rent, income from the use of something.’ 


2 Lit. “standing, remaining, established.” 
3 That is, the natives; but compare the other versions. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 19 


own benefits received from the crown must not be overrated also for another reason. In the 
priestly decree of Memphis-Rosetta the priests, after all, act as spokesmen for the people and 
thank the king principally on behalf of these, although pretending that they have been 
specially benefited by him. 

At the side of those great reforms for the natives in general, we find no special concession 
for the future to the rebelling warriors, as stated on page 14. The view that this silence of the 
decree was nothing but tactful caution (p. 14) seems most plausible. Otherwise we might 
interpret this absence of special consideration of the warriors as though the government wanted 
to win the unwarlike masses and to separate them from the warriors, who alone were hardly 
numerous enough to be very dangerous, as shown on p. 13. Anamnesty, however, was offered 
to the warriors and to all insurgents, another very great concession from the point of view of 
such a despotic government as that of the Lagide: 

(Greek 19) mpocératey 6€ Kai Tovs Katamopevouevous EK TE TOV paxiuwy Kal T@V ad\wY, THY 
&\Nbrpia hpovnodvtwv, év Tois KaTa THY Tapaxiy Katpots KaTe\Odvras peve éerl Ta ilwy KThoEwr. 
“He ordered also that those of the warriors and of the others, having different (political) 
views (!), who, during the time of the disturbance (cp. above, p. 17) surrendered (lit. came 
down), should remain in possession of their property.” 

The demotic translation is here specially interesting, showing much more clearly than the 
Greek text that not an amnesty to those who had already deserted the rebels is meant, but a 

promise held out to the rebels in order to make them return to loyalty: 


(1. 11) “‘he ordered again concerning those who would come (n—nt ¢—wei, future!) (from) 
among the warrior class (n—rm(t)w qnqn, cp. p. 60) and the rest of men who had been (é-’r 
hpr) on other ways (hr ktht m(y)t)! in the disturbance which had been (!) in Egypt (n p-thth 
é—r hpr (n) Kmt) should be left (remaining?) (1. 12) in their places (e t(y) [hpr?|-st [n] 
nw—m’w) and that their goods should be theirs’’ (nt(u) nw-nk(w)t hpr hr-w). 

This version distinguishes thus more clearly between the two classes of rebels than the 
Greek original. It divides the Greek expression ra iéva “‘their property’ into movable and 
immovable property in order to show the full value of the amnesty, and, as said above, rep- 
resents it more distinctly as an offered inducement to the rebels by employing the verb in the 
future. We see thereby that the government did its best to win the natives, but it contains 
also the proof of the desperate situation in which the Ptolemaic dynasty was placed. 

It is not likely that all this enforced liberality and mildness had much effect as long as it 
could not be backed up by military successes. After such successes of the governmental 
troops, however, the cowardly character of the Egyptians, of which we have spoken so often, 
probably began to manifest itself and to find the reforms tempting enough to desert the 
national cause or even to turn against it, as described above. 





1 Most curiously, after mentioning the remission of the yearly trip of the Egyptian priests to Alexandria for presentation (before 
the high priest of all Egypt), the writer of the decree by the mention of this voyage (which, of course, was made almost exclusively 
by water) seems to be reminded of a similar matter referring to navigation, and inserts, as a postscript to the general reforms: 


IIpocératey 5é cal tiv obd\Anvw Tar eis He also ordered that the “‘pressing’’ of (demot. 9) He ordered not to seize 
THY vavurelav 1 moveta Oar. people for the navy should not be made. rowers (?). 


Notwithstanding the fact that this reform falls out of the carefully arranged order as said here, it is not to be limited to the priests; 
it means another great general concession for all the natives, to whom that levying of rowers must have been a great oppression. 


20 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


The turning point was, evidently, the end of the war with Antiochus of Syria, 198 B. C. 
(year 7 of the king). The large army! under Skopas became free at this moment and could be 
used against the rebels.?» These, in all probability, had no uniform plan of defense. On the other 
hand, the numerous water-courses splitting up the Delta made it difficult for the royal troops to 
deal promptly a decisive blow. As such the capture of Lykopolis, in the year 8, is represented 
by the Rosetta stone. ‘This inscription, dated in the 9th year of Epiphanes, month 6 (196 
B. C.), describes the king as in possession of Memphis and of a great part at least, possibly all, 
of the Delta. Apparently also a good stretch of land south of Memphis was in the hands of the 
king; otherwise the coronation ceremony at Memphis would appear out of place. That coro- 
nation seems to have been almost contemporary with the decree; likewise the victory of 
year 8 over the rebels in Lykopolis, which secured apparently the possession of the Delta, must 
have preceded it rather directly. That it was this victory which brought wider parts of Egypt 
to subjection is visible from Ros. Gr. 29: the debts of the temples must be overlooked by the 
Ptolemaic government to year 8 (demot. 1. 17 corrects this to “year 9,’’ perhaps because the 
demotic version, out of flattery, wished to bring that benefit near to the date of the coronation; 
probably because the actual subjection of the rebellious regions was very near to the beginning 
of year 9, as said above). 

The remarkable report on this military operation is as follows (Rosetta stone, Greek 1. 21): 


Tapaytwdopevos (1. 22) de DEMOTIC TEXT (1. 12) 


kal eis AbKwy rod, THY EV TH 
Bovatpitn ) hv KaTecAnupevn 
Kal WKXUPWMEVN Tp os 
ToNLopkiar, OTAwY 6€ Tapalécer 
dayiteoTéepa Kal TH GdAAF 
xopnyla macy, ws av éx moXOU 
(l. 23) xpévov euveotnkulas 
TNS a\OTPLOT TOS TOLS 
émicuvaxbetow eis = adTny 
aoeBeow of oav els Te 
Ta lepa xkat Tovs ev 
AiyitTw Karotkouvtas mo\\a 
KaKa  ouvuyTeTeNeopévor Kal 
av (1. 24) tTixabioas xapaciv 
Te Kal Tadpots Kal TeElxeow 
avTnv.. aEtohoyots TeptéAaGer. 





1 Determined with the sign: ‘‘bad, hostile,’ owing to the special sense of the context. 
2In the meantime the Alexandrian government had to keep the soldiers, the Egyptian Macedonians and Greeks, as well as the 
Before the description of the reforms, Ros., 12, mentions rais re éavrov duvdueow rePrravOpam nKe 


mercenaries, in good will by liberality. 


But moving to Lycopolis in the 
Busirite (nome), which had been 
captured and fortified for a siege 
and with a rich store of weapons 
and all other equipment, as for a 
long time enmity (i. e., all hostile 
elements) had been gathered by 
the impious men collected into it, 
who had committed much evil to 
the temples and the inhabitants 
of Egypt, and encamping against 
(the city), he surrounded it with 
remarkable mounds and ditches 
and walls. 


(12) He went to the city of Shekan 
(13) [which had been captured] 
and equipped(?)*® by the impious 
people (with?) all [fortifications?], 
there being much outfit, all 
preparations, in its middle. 

He besieged the mentioned (lit. 
named) city with wall (and) 
dam/(s) (?)* (on its) outside be- 
cause of the impious people who 
were in it, who were leaders of 
doing much violence against 
Egypt, having deserted the way 
of the commandments of the 
king and the commandments 
(14) of the gods. 


magats. All modern translators have understood this: “‘he has shown himself liberal as far as he could,” or, “with all his resources,” 
etc. The demotic translation is, however (1. 7): ‘“‘he has given more and more (wh-f ly) gift(s) (fp) to the whole army (#migtt) which 
(was) in his high power.”’ Likewise the hieroglyphic text renders (Damanhur, 12) dvvayeow by ‘‘to the soldiers (read Ss in place of rd). 


This looks at first like an incredible mistake, but at close examination proves to be the only correct sense of the obscurely worded 
Greek text. The decree characteristically hints that before all liberality and kindness to the native masses the king first did good to 
those who had the first claim, the Macedonians and Greeks constituting the nobility and the officials the ruling classes. This 


thought is expressed so awkwardly, obscurely, and hastily, possibly because it was embarrassing to state in that decree, which. 


represented the thanks of the masses of the Egyptian natives (p. 19), that the government once had shown some consideration to them. 
3 Correct, ’tb to sbi ? ‘ 
4 The word wn is suspicious. Read t(i)n=tn below? 


4 


Tov oe NeiAXov = tHV 
avaBaow pweyadrnv Tornoa- 
pevou €vy 7a Oyddm Ere 
Kat eiOicuévov Karak vee 
Ta (1. 25) webua, Katéoxev, ék 
TOM\AWY TOTWY OXUPWOAS TAH 
oTouaTa TOV TOTAMY, 
Xopnyjoas eis avTa KXpNUaTwv 
wAn00s ovK Odlyov kal 
KaTaoTHoas inmels TE Kal 
mefous mpds TH PvdAaky (1. 26) 
avT av 


Ul > , ld af ld 

év ONLYw xXpoVw, THY TE TOALY 

KAT KpaTos ei\ev Kal Tovs év 
9 ~ 9 ~ , ld 

avTH agePeEls TavTas dLepOerper, 


e 


Kadamep |‘Epuljs cal Qpos 6 
= e \ ? , ex 
THs ‘Iovdos kai ’Ociptos vids 
éxelpwaaTo Tovs év TOLs avTots 
TOTOLS ATOOTAaYTAS TpOTEpOV. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


And when the Nile had made its 
(yearly) rise (specially?) great in 
the Sth year and was expected to 
flood the plains, he held (the Nile) 
under control, damming up in 
many places the mouths of the 
rivers (1. €., canals), 

spending for this not inconsider- 
able sums of money, 

and establishing cavalry and in- 
fantry for their (i. e., of the canals) 
guarding, 


he took in short time the city by 
force (t. e., by storm) 


and annihilated all the impious 
men in it, 

as Hermes (!) and Horus, the son 
of Isis and Osiris, had overthrown 
the rebels in the same places afore- 
time. 


21 


He put dams (to) the canals 
which brought water to the 
city mentioned (above, a thing) 
which the former kings were 
not able to do thus; 


they (!) spent” much money for 
them. 

He counted (off) troops, men on 
foot® and horses, to the mouth(?) 
of the rivers mentioned, to guard 
them safely on account of the 
[inundations] of water which were 
great in the year 8 (1. 15), ... to 
the mentioned (lit. named) rivers 
which brought water to much 
ground (!), being extremely 
deep(?).* 

The king took the city mentioned 
by force within little time. 


He made a massacre of the im- 
pious ones in it. He made it a 
slaughter, as did the sungod® and 
Horus, the son of Isis, to those 
who had committed impiety 
towards them at the places men- 
tioned formerly. 


The remarkable liberty with which the demotic text proceeds makes it again a source of 


history of its own, although its clumsiness, its dependence on the Greek text, and its inferiority to 
the latter source must not be denied. ‘The hieroglyphic version as preserved in the stone of 
Damanhur, lines 19—20, is incredibly mutilated and shortened. It reads: 

“His Majesty went to Khentiwy [repeated]; she was ... (which) were in it, because they 
had made the beginning [7. e., leadership] of many acts of violence; they had transgressed against 
the way of His Majesty and the commandments (siz) of the gods.” The rest is too unsafe and 
does not yield anything new. ‘The incredibly disfigured hieroglyphic name of the city can now 
be restored. The demotic orthography has been elucidated by Spiegelberg’s discovery of the 











1TIt is not safe to draw from this free addition the inference that Ptolemy Philopator had attacked Lykopolis unsuccessfully. 

2 Probably the third person plural is only an expression of the passive: “there was spent.’’ It could, however, also be under- 
stood of the former kings; possibly, the demotic writer understands it thus: “‘(although) these spent.’’ This would disagree, how- 
ever, with his usually very good understanding of the text. 

3 Text erroneously: his foot! 

4 By this addition the demotic writer wishes to show that he understood the inundation of year 8 as unusually high. That 
the Greek text is the original is shown by these explanatory words in a specially convincing manner. 

5 Thus also the hieroglyphic text of Damanhur. ‘The god “ Hermes-Thouti’’ in such a prominent part is surprising. Still I 
hesitate to restore the Greek text to [dp]ns “the sungod”’ after the other versions. The engraver, at least, seems to have intended 
“Hermes,” only we should like to assume that the reading was a misunderstanding of the name Phré, ‘“‘the sungod.”’ 


22 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


name in a demotic schoolbook, the papyrus 3116, of Cairo (Die demot. Papyrus von Cairo, text 
271, pl. CLIX, col. 2, 13) dorwesy S(a)gan, SC) gin. Consequently the Hntywy (19), Hntynwy 
(20), of the Damanhur stone is to be read $}(=Hnt +3}=ty)g(=nty)nw, exactly as written in 
demotic. ‘The orthography of the Rosetta text (line 12) 2]5,-~3 is now to be understood 
as Skan or S(a)kan. ‘The varying expression of the palatal k/g may betray the beginning 
of the soft pronunciation of that letter which we find in the Coptic letter Jima. The group- 
ing of the names in the Cairo papyrus does not help us at all; a preceding city “house of 
Osiris of Rakotis’’ confirms only the neighborhood of Busiris, evidently not of Alexandria, for 
which the copyist seems to have misunderstood it. Would it not be possible to find our name 
also in the part of the Busiris nome which appears in the geographic lists as S}-tp-nty or S3sf(1)? 
Cp. J. de Rougé, Géographie Ancienne de la Basse Egypte, 58. 

The description of the campaign shows that the city was surrounded by water like so many 
Delta places and that the summer inundation had increased the strength of these natural 
fortifications. From the sentimental story how the noble king had even to pay the guards of 
the dykes, the inference could be drawn that the commander of the royal army wanted to pro- 
tect the fortifications around the city mound, and at the foot of it, situated still in the plain, 
against flooding by piercing the dykes. This would mean an extremely difficult task, how- 
ever. Simpler is the assumption that there is meant only the protection of the long highroads, 
which in summer stand like dykes from the inundating water; the rebels coming on boats from 
the city tried to cut these at the proper places (‘‘at the mouth of canals,”’ z. e., where navigable 
canals met those highroads at right angle) and to isolate the besieging Greek troops. The 
insurgents may have done this with success repeatedly; otherwise the efforts to protect the 
dams would not be mentioned.' 

The final capture of the city was followed by a general massacre, as the Rosettana clearly 
states (cp. Damanhur, 22: “he made (of) them a great slaughter” (5d ‘;). Those occupants of 
the city, who even endured a formal siege, must have been the most desperate elements among 
the rebels, who had forfeited their lives repeatedly. Thus, it seems, the Greeks made an exam- 
ple of them, which impressed the other rebels deeply. 

Here Polybius sets in with a fragment of the ecoripta Valesiana (23, 16 Schweighaeuser, 
21, 19 Dindorf): 


[IIro\euatos 6 Bactreds Aiyirrovu| dre When he [Ptolemy the King of Egypt] (had) 
Thy Avxav Ilé\w éwodtudpxnoe [| . . . | besieged the city Lycopolis [ . . . ] frightened by 
Katat\ayévTes TO yeyovos ol duvaorat that which had happened, the chiefs of the Egyptians 
tov Aiyurtiwy wxav odas adtrovs eis gave themselves into the faith of the king [ 
Thv Tov Bactlews miory [| . .. | He treated these badly [ . . . ] and fell ‘ate 
ois Kak@s éxpjoaro [| . . . | xal es many dangers. 
Kw vvous To\Xovs EvVeTTETEV. 


This very fragmentary excerpt’ confirms the Rosettana in reporting a formal siege of 
Lycopolis and terrible cruelties of the king’s forces (indicated by the terror which seized the 





1 Budge, in his The Rosetta Stone (The Decrees of Memphis and Canopus, vol. I1), pp. 30 to 31, strangely understood the description 
in the Rosettana that the king shut off the rebels from drinking water, until they ‘‘were driven to surrender; immediately all the stale 
water which lay a few feet below the canal-bottoms was exhausted.’ A strange fancy! In summerly Egypt, at least in the Delta, 
the slightest digging strikes ground water and should have prevented a surrendering for the sake of thirst. 

2 Schweighaeuser, 7, 516, remarked correctly: in brevius haec contracta esse a compilatore eclogarum satis apparet. 


—_—— . 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 23 


rebels), but its second and third sections must not be interpreted, as usually is done, as record- 
ing the surrender of the rebels inclosed in the city, so that “what happened” would be the 
progress of the siege. My understanding of the text is that it records the completed (aorist) 
siege; the verb thus includes also the final capture of the city. The description of the Rosettana 
excludes a capitulation. ‘To assume that the priestly writer wanted to hide the breach of the 
capitulation by his expression “he took the city by storm”’ seems to me very unsafe. Such a 
concealing would look like embellishing the actions of the divine ruler, the king, 7. e., excusing 
them. This could be interpreted as criticizing them, and those poor priests were careful enough 
in their expression, especially at that time, to avoid the punishment of /aesa majestas. Thus I 
take the storming of the city and immediate massacring of the defenders quite literally. The 
surrender of the rebels seems to mean those in adjacent districts of the Delta, east (and south?) 
of Busiris. This and the breach of the capitulation by their execution, namely, is indicated 
somewhat also in the following words of the Rosettana: 
DEMOTIC TEXT. 


(27)rovs [6’]! adnynoapeévous 
Tov atooTavTwy émi Tov 
€auTov TaTpos Kal THY xXwpav 
élvox\no?|avras kal Ta lepa 
aOLKHoaAYTAS Tapayer OuEVos Eis 
Méuduy, érapvvav” (28) 7 @ 
matpt kal TH éavTov Baovdeia, 
mavTas ékO\acey KabnKovTws 
Kab’ Ov Katpov tapeyerndn 
mpos TO svuTedeoO7 [var a’T@ 
Ta] WpoonKkovTa voulua TH 
Tapadnyer THs Bacotdelas 


(And) the leaders of those who 
had fallen away under his father 
and had troubled the country and 
had wronged the temples, when 
he came to Memphis, (for?) aveng- 
ing his father and his own royal 
power, he punished them all as 
they deserved, at the occasion when 
he appeared, that there should be 
accomplished to him the proper 
ceremonies for the taking over of 
the kingship. 


(16) The impious ones who had 
assembled soldiers, becoming 
leaders to trouble the nomes, 
doing wrong (gm) to the temples, 
deserting the way of the king and 
his father, the gods gave that he 
made a slaughter among them 
at the festival of receiving the 
high(est) dignity which he re- 
ceived (lit. did) from his father. 
He caused them to be killed (on) 
the wood. 


The demotic text here again is an important source on account of its free rendering. Also 
the hieroglyphic text is fortunately preserved, Ros. 1 (cp. Damanhur, 22-23, which is much 


mutilated) : 


. . . [Det. impious people] also (N. B.!)? who had amassed (zdb‘) soldiers (N. B.!), who had 


been at the head of them, upsetting (?sdm) the nomes (tsw) (and) violating (th;) the temples [Damanhur 
completes this: at the receiving of the kingship from his father . . . killing,® placing them (?) on® the wood]. 


The greater dependence of the hieroglyphic version on the demotic text than on the Greek 
(p. 4) is remarkable; it elucidates the demotic somewhat, notwithstanding its mutilation. For 
example, it confirms it in the statement that those leaders of the rebels were soldiers,’ and fur- 
nishes the best confirmation of the fact that the native soldiers formed the nucleus of the 





1 My conception of the text prefers the restoration 6’ to that of 7’ which is usually employed. 

2 Or énaubywy part. pres. “avenging.” 

3’sk (cp. p. 32, note 6) ‘‘and, moreover, also.” 

4Cp. Senuhyt, line 130, this verb for the gathering of armies. 

5 Only m:m left of the verb sm(m) “‘to kill.” 

6 The circle and stroke seems to mean fp ‘‘on.”’ The plural strokes behind belong to the pronoun (sm or st) ‘“‘them’”’ which ought 
to stand before ¢p. i 

7 That the word Ss means here ‘‘multitude,” not “soldiers,’’ is extremely improbable. See Ss for regular soldiers, 4Z. 1884, 104. 
It is true, the peculiar use of the Egyptian expression for “multitude’”’ causes many difficulties, as we have had to state repeatedly. 


24 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


rebels. Furthermore, both Egyptian versions give us the unedifying detail that the execution, 
which embellished the celebration of the coronation at Memphis, was done “on the wood,”’ 7. e., 
by empaling or crucifixion. The Greek text hints very delicately at the cruelty of the punish- 
ment, while the Egyptian scribes, wishing to show their loyalty, become brutal in their faithful 
description. Modern commentators have always connected this latter section, about the execu- 
tion of the insurgent leaders, with the capture of Lycopolis by assuming that the majority of 
the rebels fell at the storming, and that some, especially the leaders, were spared for a more 
cruel and solemn death. A careful examination of the text will show that two different groups 
of rebels are meant; the wording of the Egyptian versions shows it much more clearly. Even 
the Greek text would force us to accuse the writer of a very careless style, especially of repeti- 
tion in describing the crimes of the rebels and contradicting thoughtlessly the previous state- 
ment that all defenders of Lycopolis had been killed. We see that the Greek text is very 
carefully worded. The way in which those rebels came alive into the hands of the king is quietly 
passed over, and a hidden excuse for their execution is given in the description of their specially 
great guilt; so far it was possible to go in representing the facts pleasantly without criticizing 
His Majesty. ‘Thus not a breach of the capitulation is meant by Polybius’ criticism that the 
king broke his faith to the rebellious natives, but a breach of the general amnesty described 
above, p. 14. ‘The priestly historian finds it quite proper, of course, that the special crimes of 
those leaders excluded them from royal clemency. 

The fall of Lycopolis and the coronation at Memphis can not have been widely apart, 
according to our passage. We have shown this above (p. 20). I leave it to others to determine 
from the mention of the high Nile something about the relation in which the shifting civil year 
of the Egyptians stood to the astronomical year and to our present system of arranging the 
antique chronology. ‘The capture of the city could be assumed to be later than the time of the 
high Nile and_to fall into the autumn, but this can not be proved with certainty. 

The vague final words of the extract from Polybius seem to hint that the cruel execution 
of those rebel leaders proved to be a great mistake, 7. e., that, notwithstanding the concession to 
Egyptian national feeling by a crowning ceremony in Memphis, parts of the Egyptians rose 
anew, fearing the faithless cruelty of the king, so that he ‘entered into many dangers,”’ 7. e., so 
that he suffered defeats. This must refer to Lower Egypt, the part of the country most difficult 
for military operations, where also most of the machimoi were settled (p.16). Inany case, at the 
time of the coronation, early in the year 9, Upper Egypt must still have remained independent. 

The Rosettana (1. 20, see p. 19), it is true, speaks of “the times during the revolution”’ 
(literally: “disturbance,” cp. p. 19), as though these times belonged, in the year 9, entirely to 
the past. However, we must not be deceived by this loyal pretension. It does not furnish any 
clue for tracing the reconquest of Upper Egypt. All the inscriptions we have of Ptolemy V. > 
above Memphis (Max L. Strack, Die Dynastie der Ptolemaer, p. 245) mention Epiphanes 
together with the queen Cleopatra, 7. e., these inscriptions are at least later than the marriage 








1TLetronne, Recueil d' Inscriptions, I, 298, wondered that the enumeration of benefits done to all temples of the whole country con- 
trasts with the mention only of the Apis and Mnevis, gods worshipped near Memphis; he missed especially a mention of the gods of 
Thebes. This argument may be of some value, but it is not forceful. Thebes, at that time, had lost most of its ancient 
importance, and the Apis and Mnevis were best known to the Greeks as the most famous sacred animals, so that they might simply 
stand as types of the native Egyptian pantheon, even when the whole country was accessible. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 25 


of 193 (year 12?), even later than the reconquest of the Thebais in the nineteenth year.! 
Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemies, 313) believes that “dated documents among the Petrie 
-Papyri (II, xiv, vit) show that in the fourth and the eighteenth years of Epiphanes, the 
Ptolemaic law-courts and the farming of taxes, etc., were undisturbed in the secluded Arsinoite 
nome.’ But there is the possibility that documents written during the time of the revolution 
and lacking thus the correct and legal dating were rewritten after the suppression of the rebellion; 
the “legal government” would not recognize a document without proper dating, and rewriting 
such objectionable documents was too fine a pretext for officials and lawyers to obtain extra 
fees. ‘Thus we must not too easily be deceived by those dates. On the other hand, it is probable 
that the Fayum, with its strong Greek population, could be maintained against the rebels as 
long as the royal power reached to Memphis. We may venture to draw an inference as to the 
time of the reconquest from the legation sent by Ptolemy Epiphanes to Rome in rgr B.C. 
(year 14?) to offer an enormous sum of money and his armies to the Romans as aid in the 
impending war with Antiochus of Syria. If this was not a grotesque deception, the Ptolemaic 
government ought to have had the greater part of the arable ground of Egypt under its control 
at that time, so that the taxes flowed again into the depleted treasury of Alexandria, minus 
those of the Thebais only. 

I place here another fragment of Polybius, the continuation of the passage from the 
excerpta Valesiana (21, 19 Dindorf, cp. p. 22): 


Tapamw\HnoLov 6€ TL avuveBn Kal KaTQ And something similar happened also at the time 
TOUS KQLpoOUsLnVLKa Ilo\uvKkparns TOUS aTooTavTas when Polycrates (had) subdued the insurgents. 
EXELPWTATO. 

Ot yap Tept rov ’A@ivw kat Ilavoipay For the followers of Athinis and Pausiras (!) and 
kal Xéoovdov Kal tov ‘IpdBacrov, oimep Chesuphos and Irobastos, who still survived of the 
Hoa €TL dracwe OueEvoL TOV duvacTor, eiEavTes (rebellious) chiefs, yielding to necessity, appeared at Sais 
Tols mpayuact Tapnoay eis Hy Law and surrendered themselves to the discretion of the king. 
Kal ogas avrovs eis THY Tov PBaciréws But Ptolemy, disregarding the pledges and having 
éxerpifovto TloTL. ‘O dé Ilro\euatos the men tied naked to the (!) carts, had them dragged 


adernoas Tas lores Kal dnoas_ Tovs 
avOpwmovs yuuvols Tats auatas eidxe 


kal wera Tavta(!) Timwpnodpevos” aTeKTELVeE. and after this (!) had them vengefully (!) killed. 

Kai mapayevouevos peta tavta(!) eis And going after this (!) to Naucratis with his army, 
tyv Navxpatw pera THs oTpatias xal(!) when Aristonicus had presented to him the men en- 
TapactTyoavtos avT@ Tots é&evooynuevous listed for him as mercenaries from Greece, he received 








1 From the time before the year 19/20 date Strack, No. 71 (from Benihasan) and No. 73 (from Tehneh), because they still use the 
second official surname of the king, edxdpioros ‘the winsome.’ We find this title abandoned, above all, in our two Phile decrees; 
that of Damanhur, copying the old decree of year 9, partly keeps mechanically that title, partly omits it. The reasons for the official 
omission of that surname tempt us to think that the king, regarding himself a great conqueror after the first victories, did not wish 
to be called ‘“‘kind’”’ any more. That it was omitted, e. g.,on the dedicatory Greek inscription of the Asklepios temple at Philz 
only to save space (Letronne, Recueil d’Inscr. I, 9, after Parthey), is, of course, impossible, The Egyptian priests, in other inscrip- 
tions, tried partly to replace it by other titles. Those two inscriptions (71 and 73) thus show that Middle Egypt had been regained 
between the years 12 and 19. 

2 A. Mai, Nova Script. Coll. Il, 412, gives this as from book 21 with the variant riwwpnfevras. “ The text seems to aim at express- 
ing the idea for stating a warning, example.” 


26 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


avopas € Tis ‘E\A\ados =’ Aptorovixou these and sailed away to Alexandria, having had no 
tT poo beEauEvos TOUTOUS amémA\€voev €ls THY part in the military operations on account of the sus- 
"AreEavopetav, Tay pev TOV Toeuou Tpatewy picions of Polycrates, although he was 25 years old. 


ovdeulas KEeKoLvnKws, dca THY Ilo\vKpatous 
adixodoElay Kalmep Exwy ern TevTE Kal elKoowY. 

This fragment is apparently not in good condition. It speaks of the followers of the 
rebellious chiefs, but not of those chiefs themselves. The number of names given for the 
chiefs makes it plain that the chiefs themselves surrendered and were executed, perhaps after 
having been deserted by their followers. After having been dragged by carts, not much of 
them ought to have remained for execution; indeed, the strange wera ravra returns directly 
below and this looks thus like a doublet, z. e., as though an attempt had been made to remove 
these words further down to a better place. Also elsewhere, the text does not seem to be intact. 
Consequently, the fragment needs more criticism than it has received so far. 

The difficulty to fit it into the events which we know is due to the statement that the king 
was 25 years old. ‘This would bring us into the year 181 B. C., the twentieth year of his reign. 
This is the time when our two decrees were engraved and when all Upper Egypt had again been 
subjected. It would be very surprising to find then the king still fighting rebels in Lower 
Egypt and raising mercenaries in Greece. Lower Egypt, namely, is clearly the scene of the 
fragment. The king’s encampment is at Sais and the rebels have, evidently, not far to 
go to find him. Furthermore, the surviving dynasts point back to the part of the country 
where those chiefs were mentioned before. In Upper Egypt we have only the one rebel 
leader, according to our second decree, hardly various independent chiefs.! Thus it would 
be difficult to explain them as Upper Egyptians. That Lower Egyptian chiefs, however, 
would fight through from the eighth to the twentieth year, even to the time after the 
subjection of the Thebais, seems impossible. A still greater incongruity between that date 
and the events described lies in the commandership of Polycrates. ‘That this old commander 
of Ptolemy IV. kept his position and his favor with the king so long in that time of constantly 
changing officials is too great an improbability; the fragment itself points to the instability of 
that turbulent period, mentioning the suspicions which filled the old commander. Conse- 
quently, that date of the twenty-fifth year of the king’s life does not agree with the above 
details. It either has been taken over erroneously from other, later, events or it has been dis- 
figured. ‘To suit the narrative of the fragment we might propose to change the number xe 
“twenty-five” to ve “fifteen.”” The emphasizing of the fact that the king possessed a sufficient 
age for taking part in military operations, however, would not be very forceful; only for a pre- 
cocious young king an age of fifteen would justify that remark. Neither would an emenda- 
tion to k “‘twenty”’ (omitting the 5!) clear away the aforementioned difficulties. At any rate, 
the commandership of Polycrates and the surrender and execution of the rebels belong 








1 We are not yet sufficiently advanced philologically to explain the Egyptian etymologies of those four names of the chiefs and to 
determine their home from the dialect betrayed in them and from the theophorous parts. Jr(?)—obastos does not necessarily come 
from the city of the goddess Bubastis. Pausiras is evidently to be corrected into the ordinary Pausiris; Wilcken (AZ. 1883, 164) and 
Herodotus (3, 15) show it specially as Low Egyptian and Fayumic; the Pha— which we should expect after the Coptic form for the 
dialect of this part of Egypt, in place of the Pa— of our text, is not yet the rule in Ptolemaic time. For Chesuphos and Athinis I 
prefer not to try uncertain guesses; their form may need correction. We must not overestimate the tradition in Polybius as to its 
accuracy in these details; the names may have suffered various mutilations, even before they reached him. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. Li, 


to a time not long after the events of the Rosettana, 7. e., not later than the fifteenth year of 
the king. The question remains whether the following narrative really fits the twenty-fifth 
year of Ptolemy Epiphanes. At first we are tempted to stretch the date somewhat and to 
find a connection of the report with the events of the nineteenth year of the king’s reign, 
if not with the twentieth. Great preparations have been made, according to Polybius, 
for a military expedition. The king, however, does not take the Greek mercenaries 
where they are needed, 7. e., to the scene of war. Instead, he leads them to Alexandria, 
evidently for executing in the capital some coup d’ état, to free himself of some too powerful 
official, evidently of Polycrates himself. The mentioning of the suspicions of Polycrates 
point to this. Thus it would not do to assume that we have here the preparations for the 
great expedition against the Thebais in the year 19 and to harmonize (as a small slip of 
Polybius or the excerptor) the discrepancy of one year (as twenty-five years of life would seem 
to bring us into the twentieth year of Epiphanes’ reign according to the current chronology). 
It seems impossible, I repeat, to assume that Polycrates’ then was still in command of the 
army and influential enough to keep the king, against his will, from the war plans and opera- 
tions. Assuming that the fragment begins to describe his downfall, we are again brought into 
a period considerably anterior to the eventful year 19, and again come to the result that the 
remark about the 25 years of life can not be correct. At least I should advise the use of that 
fragmentary extract with the greatest possible caution and should, for the present, assume that 
it confounds names and events of different periods, although they seem to date principally from 
the time when the king began to make himself independent from his so-called guardians, 7. e., 
presumably the time after his marriage in 193 B. C., near the date of that embassy to Rome, 
when some serious efforts were made to consolidate the Kingdom, as we have seen above. 
The Thebais, at any rate, must have been independent from the Alexandrian government 
during the whole twenty-one years indicated by the building inscriptions of Edfu (p. 15). This 
fact, so surprising to those who are still under the influence of the deceptive Greek historians, 
has been revealed by the dates of Theban demotic business documents, referring to the new 
government and the native kings installed by the rebels. These documents were discovered 
by Revillout (Revue Archéologique, 1877, 926 foll.). Brugsch (Aeg. Zettschr., 1878, 43) com- 
mented upon them (independently?). Revillout (zbzd., 1879, 131), in a short final discussion 
(also in notes, Revue Egyptol., 1, 190; II, 145, etc.), did not add much to his former results.’ 
The names of those two kings are ,,{x5) Har-(e)m-hleb], pronounced Harmah, Greek 
Harmais, and 2f: 2Op [‘An|ha*-(e)m-h{eb], pronounced Khamah, Greek, after the analogy 
of the other name, probably *Chamais. ‘The pronunciation of the last group in both 
names has, so far, not yet been determined with absolute certainty. It is written by a 

1 Certainly not for parading the troops in triumph, as was conjectured by Sharpe and Duemichen. 

* That a different Polycrates was meant would be very improbable. 

8 The essays by Baillet on these questions repeat only Revillout’s data, with the addition of some errors. 

4 The root ‘nh suffers in such names a strong mutilation, which is indicated orthographically by omission of the initial letter “Ain 
(erroneously omitted Ros. demot. 2, p-twt ‘nl in the very awkwardly engraved text). The pronunciation is furnished by the bi- 
lingual Pap. Berlin, formerly 116, now 3116 (Spiegelberg, Demot. Pap. Berlin, p. 19, pl. 42 foll.), p. I, 8 Xamoxparns =[‘n]h—p-hrd, 
p. II, 6 Xamovyaois (read rather Xaroxavors Pap. Casati 16, 9; 28, 2)=[‘n]h-p-Hns. See Griffith, Rylands Papyri, 206, where 


the Coptic particle looking like a preposition, Se— ‘“‘by”’ (originally ‘‘as well as lives’’), in oaths, correctly is added as the later 
pronunciation of the above verbal form. 


28 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


conventional ligature which does not give a certain clue to its pronunciation and, therefore, 
has been read in various ways. ‘The Greek pronunciation (‘)Apyas for the above first name 
has been known for a long time; see the bilingual Pap. Berl. 3116, I, 30, with the enlarged © 
forms [Pet]armais II, 25, (P)senarmais II, 27, and compare as a further proof, Griffith, 
Rylands Pap., p. 457.’ 

Egyptologists still hover doubtfully between the explanation of the last part, corresponding 
to Greek -ais, as ah(z), ahet “horizon, splendor’ (still so Spiegelberg, Pap. Berl., 17) or heb 
“festival” (Griffith, Rylands Pap., 457). However, both words, afi and heb, are written 
differently in demotic orthography. ‘The truth is, the group of signs in those personal names is 
abbreviated in a way leaving no trace at all of the original etymology, as we just have stated. 
The only explanation of this is that the name was gradually mutilated to the senseless pronun- 
ciation *Haremh(eb), *Har(e)meh, *Harmah. ‘This mutilation was so strong that its graphic 
expression very early abandoned all connection with the old etymology.” That Manetho 
expresses the name of the old king Har-em-heh of dynasty 19 by Apyats is remarkable; 
we should hardly have expected of that historian such a consciousness of the connection between 
the original etymology and the living pronunciation of his age for a name mutilated 1,300 years 
previously, or longer. For the other proposed etymology of both names, “Horus in the hori- 
zon,” and “(may he) live in the horizon”’ (7. e., in splendor, like a rising celestial body), might 
be referred to the fact that, while the inscription at the great sphinx of Gizeh (Letronne, Recuezl 
d’Inscr. II, 467) calls the sphinx the god (H)armachis, Diodorus I, 64, speaks of the king 
Apuatos who built the first pyramid, meaning exactly the same name as above. With this 
writer, however, that mutilation of the name Har-(e)m-ah(z) [older ’;ht, akhet| ‘“Horus in the 
horizon”’ does not mean very much. We can admit that the late abbreviation Harmah may ~ 
have included also the rarer name Har-(e)m-akhet in parts of Egypt where the pronuncia- 
tion of the gutturals began to be confounded, but this does not alter the fact that the popular 
name, after becoming meaningless, is to be traced back in the first line to ‘““Horus in the festival” 
(z. e., the god at his best time, in his best appearance, in his most clement mood, as Griffith had 
correctly supposed). 

This discussion of the original etymology may seem useless here, but it will be seen from the 
result that the second name [“An|ha-m-(a)h|eb], Khamah, *Chamais, ‘‘(may he) live in the festi- 
val,’”’ seems to be formed after the first. This would militate somewhat, of course, against the 
fact established above, that the name Harmais, Har-mah, had become meaningless for the multi- 
tude. If Manetho, however, still knew the old etymology of the mutilated name Harmais and 
connected it with the king Har-em-heb, the scholars of Thebes may well have known as much as 
he, so that they were able to form the second name, Khamah-Chamais, after the first. Therefore 
the formation of the names discloses that Chamais was the successor of Harmais. ‘The same con- 
clusion was reached by Spiegelberg (Demot. Pap. Berlin, p. 17) by a different method, 7. e., from 








1See also the corresponding name Thotmais (?) Griffith, Rylands Pap., 464. 

2 Thus, already in the inscription of Amen-em-heb (ult.), Ma-hu occurs as a familiar abbreviation of this name, i. e., Mak. We 
can trace such mutilating abbreviations of long names and their strange orthography (which gives up conserving any trace of ety- 
mology) to the pyramid time. Cp. the analogous mutilations of English names like Dick, Jack, etc. The above-mentioned abbre- 
viation Ma-hu is very common in the New Empire; see Lieblein, Dictionnaire de Noms Index. Its frequency is explained by the fact 
that also other names, containing various divine names composed with ‘‘in the festival,’’ could suffer the same abbreviation. 


THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 29 


the contents of the Berlin contracts of those two kings. Closer examination of the witness lists 
on those documents, etc., will probably confirm this result. 
We have of those two kings the following dates: 


Harmah-Harmats: 

Year 4, month 6 (?).—Pap. London, Revillout, Chrestomathie Démotique, 395, note; Revue Archéo- 
logique, 77, 328. 

Year 4, month 3, is now furnished by a papyrus in double execution, in Five Years’ Explorations 
at Thebes, by the Earl of Carnarvon, plates 35 and 38. 

Year 4, month 11.—Pap. Berlin, 3145, Revillout, Nouvelle Chrestomathie, 109; Spiegelberg, Pap. 
Demot. Berlin, 17, pl. 37. 

Year 6, month 10.—Pap. Berlin, formerly 143, 144, now 3142, Revillout, Nouvelle Chrest., 126: 
Spiegelberg, Pap. Demot. Berlin, p. 17, pl. 36. 


Khamah, Chamats: 

Year 7, month 1.—Pap. Berlin, formerly 146, now 3146; see Revillout, Revue Eg., SG eS 

Year 14, month 11 (?).—Pap. Marseille, Revillout, Chrestomathie, 395; Revue Arch., 77, 1. 1. 

We see this gives at least part of one year and four complete years for the first king, one 
year common to both kings, twelve complete years and over ten months of a year for the sec- 
ond, 7. e., a total of seventeen complete and two partial years. This minimal date comes very 
near the duration of the rebellion as furnished by the inscription of Edfu (p. 15): one year and 
part of a year under Philopator, then (counting year 18 of Philopator and 1 of Epiphanes as 
identical) eighteen years and part of a year under Epiphanes. ‘The text of Phile states more 
precisely that the incomplete last year of the rebel king comprised 10 months and 24 days. 
This allows the last-mentioned contract of Khamah-Chamais to be written in the month of the 
decisive battle which ended the native dynasty of the Thebais.'. We have thus, after the 
Edfu text, as maximum, nineteen complete and two incomplete years. ‘This agrees extremely 
well with the minimum years of the demotic documents and makes it probable that those two 
rulers represent the whole native dynasty of rebel kings in the southern part of Egypt. 

Modern historians, writing under the spell of Greek thinking, like Mahaffy and Bouché 
Leclercq, have found it inconceivable that the Thebais could be independent for such a long 
time. Thus Mahaffy (The Empire of the Ptolemtes, 313) eagerly grasped an hypothesis of J. 
Krall (Studien zur Geschichte des alten Aegyptens, II, 43)? that those kings of the Thebais were 
Ethiopian kings who had penetrated into Egypt during those troubled years and ‘‘counted their 
years as kings of Ethiopia, not of Upper Egypt,” so that ‘‘the long period of eighteen years of 
successful rebellion is not necessary.’ Bouché-Leclercq (Histoire des Lagides, 365) likewise 
mentions this theory with favor, but he finds it difficult to believe even in any fixed government 
of the insurgents: ‘‘C’est une exagération que de parler alors de Thébaide indépendante. Ces 
roitelets étaient des chefs de bande qui pouvaient inquiéter, mais non dominer la Haute Egypte.”’ 
The latter statement shows that the writer had not taken time to examine thoroughly the 
extracts from the demotic documents communicated by Revillout, a splendid illustration of the 











1Cp. also the second Philz text, line 12a, about some prominent part played by the son of the “‘pretender’’ in the final battle. 
So, the latter would not seem to have been a young man. 
* Similarly Revillout, Revue Egyptologique, v, 99, Mémoire sur les Blemmyes, etc. 


30 THE GREAT EGYPTIAN REVOLUTION. 


contempt generally shown by the ‘“‘classical scholars” of the old school towards any source not 
written in the only decent languages imaginable, 7. e., in Greek or Latin. The long duration 
of the reigns of those last native Pharaohs, their full and formal titles, and the fixed forms of 


government revealed by the contract protocols ought to have shown to any careful reader 


that those native rulers were no leaders of roving insurgent bands. 

The Ethiopian hypothesis of Krall, which once seemed very attractive, is now exploded by 
our Phile text. ‘The vanquished “impious man”’ is most distinctly designated as an Egyptian 
rebel who had called the Ethiopians to aid him (line 12)). If the reverse had been true, 7. e., 
if an Ethiopian ruler aided by the Egyptian rebels had been conquered, our text would certainly 
have designated him as such; it would have added so much to the glory of the victory that 
we could not expect it to be suppressed. 

That a great part of Egypt was independent to the year 19 is confirmed also by the general 
remission of unpaid taxes to that year (Phile I, demot. 5f), which forms a parallel to the first 
remission of taxes unpaid during the revolution to the year 8 (Rosettana, 1. 8). 

Another valuable result which can now be taken from the second Philensis is that in 
the Thebais we have one ruler of all the rebels, not those many small duvagra: or “‘chiefs’’ of 
Polybius which the peculiar geographic formation of the Delta produced there among the 
insurgents. Also in this case the decree would rather have spoken of a plurality of rebel 
leaders if possible; this would have sounded much better as increasing the value of the victory 
and showing more clearly the illegality of the secession. The mention also of the crown 
prince of the native kingdom (line 12a; see above, p. 74, p. 75, note 1) is a certain confirma- 
tion of the uniform government of the Thebais. 

With this agree the official protocols of those native rulers on the Theban business docu- 
ments mentioned above. ‘They are: ‘“‘the king Harmah, living forever, beloved by Isis, 
beloved of Amen-Ré‘, the king of the gods, the great god.’’ The second king’s titles are quite 
identical. ‘These titles are very interesting. In demotic contracts the royal titles are always 
shortened, also with the Ptolemaic kings. Moreover, the second “cartouche,” containing 
the official name of the earlier style, is always omitted in those private documents, so that we 
need not conclude from the above protocol that a shortened titulature, indicating a more 
democratic government, was used by those native rulers. On their own official documents and 
on buildings they certainly employed as pompous and full titles as any rulers of gentile Egypt 
ever used. Characteristic is the mention of Isisand Amon. It is tempting to think of the Isis 
of Philz and to assume that the rebels came from the southern frontier of Egypt, but this is 


by no means certain. Isis had so many temples. The mention of Amon indicates probably ~ 


that the residence of the native dynasty was at Thebes. ‘Thebes still seems to have been the 
most populous city of Upper Egypt and it had an important situation. The mention of the 
“land of Thebes”’ in the Philee decree (line 5a), of course, proves nothing to that effect; it is 
merely an awkward translation of the old Greek term ‘“Thebais” and thus quite vague. 





ee ee ee ee 





THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 31 


TIERS GIRS Pas DECREE. 
THE RELIGIOUS OCCASION FOR THE DECREE. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 


[The high priests and the prophets “and those 





DEMOTIC TEXT. 


4a 
[b2|-zsr or (s-m'r [nt sS(m) e(?) p(?)— m‘wb e 'Y 
who enter] the sanctuary for vesting [who go to the sanctuary to perform 
4a 
ntrw m  hbsw—sn h‘ shsw mnh n n—ntrw| | [nm n-sh(3)w 
the gods with their vestments and_ the scr bes the clothing of the gods] [and the scribes 
zm;wt(?) ntr ty(!)? pr(wy)- mlzyw(?)* nm n-sh(})w [pr(wy?) 
of the sacred books (and) the faculty (of) the (double) | of blooks and _ the scribes (of) [the (double) 
4b 
‘nh hé n— | kyw ‘nh mm n- 
house of life (7.e., the library) and the other house of life (7. e., the library) and the 
wbw y(y) m ’trty k’w = w‘bw e—r— y(y) 
priests coming from the twofold sanctuaries other priests who have come 
: ; . 4b 
rsy(?) mhyt(?)  *w nb—hz n n- ’rpyw t-Kmy| | e Mn-nfr 
of the South (and) North to ‘The White Wall from the temples of Egypt] to Memphis 
(7. e., Memphis) 
4¢ 
w shn? Hp-‘nh ‘b-sn_ | r |e p-_ shne n Hp—‘nh € 
for installation (of) the Living Apis, whohave metat| to the installation of the Living Apis, having 
4c 
sh2’t? nty ’"nb-rsy t(w)t e | ht-ntr nm. Pth (?) 
the sanctuary of the (One in His) Southern Wall assembled at the temple of Ptah 
(i. e., Ptah) 
[k3|-sn: ey PEK a8) lan) [er at 
. (who) say: [in the Southern Wall?] [who have said: 
REASONS FOR THE DECREE. 
THE ROYAL BENEFITS. 
4d 
m—d(y)—nty wnn | n-tt] hr -'r 
because has continued because] used to do 
4d 4e 
sr | Ptwirwmys, ‘nh pr-’ Ptlwmys | ‘nh at Pth 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, who lives king Ptolemy, living forever, of Ptah 
mo mriy) §6=«-«sSWPth, ntr pr, mr p—-ntr [nt pr (p-?) sy 
forever, beloved of Ptah, the God Epiphanes, beloved, the God [Epiphanes, the son of 
; 4f 
n n—st ‘byty pr-' Ptlwmys nm] | pr-‘t 
the son of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, king Ptolemy and] (of) the queen 








1A disfigurement of the old word gnbdt “commission, committee, faculty,” through the hieratic abbreviation of 


this word which was first misread #}y. 


It occurs frequently; see Damanh. 7, our second decree, 4a, etc. 
* Lit. “‘the meeting, happening, lucky appearance.” 


3 Originally ‘‘chapel,’”’ but here used freely for ‘‘temple’’ in general. 
* The traces before the big, vertical, palimpsestic line look much like ‘nh, i. e., as the order of both classes 
of hierogrammates had been changed in the Phile text. I have, however, followed the text of the Rosetta stone. 


32 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
4e 48 
Ptw;rwmys  h‘ | hat nbi-twy slsyn; n—-nirw | mr—ytw, 
Ptolemy, andthe queen (and) mistress of both | Arsinoé, the Gods Philopator, 
countries, 
Orw'wpdr(t) ntrwy mr (wy) ytwy, | nm(?) [pr—t Glwptré, n-ntrw nt pr | 
Cleopatra (!!),1 the two Gods Loving (their) Parents, | and [the queen Cleopatra, the Gods Epiphanes], 
hr—'r(t) ()h(w)t nb(t) nfrw(t) m hwt(?)—ntrw | [mt-]nfrt [Sy nu n- ’rpyw Kmyt 
doing all things good in(!)? the temples bene[fits many to the temples (of) Egypt 
5a 
h‘ wn!) mri? yi(w)tf  mnhe} nm] | n—nt hn [tf-);wt [pr-' 
and (to) those being within his benevolent office and] to those who (are) within [his royal] office, 
(i. e., kingdom) 
r- j;w-sn (’)r(y)w tr—w] 
a'lofthem, thereof (?!),* fall of them.]’ 
’r-sn ()ht-nb(t) | twtw(/) n-r(t) my ’r-n 
they doing everything behooving todo as did |... .. +. 6 « « » © » © e00ss0ts 
5a 
| Dhwty, ‘ “  s—w)2(?) [2t—|‘(?) to ee ee 
Thout, the very great one, ordaining the fitting things(?) 
56 
m *b =n [ntr—mnh hr ntrw? [e ht(i)-f mnk] | () n—- ntrw 
with the heart of [akind god] towards the gods. | [being his heart kind] to the gods,® 
Rdyt(!)—nf nb(?!)-wrw hy qnw* é-f- ty ht prt), pr(l)® ‘Sy n n- 


He gave much money (and) grain in abundance | (as) he gave money (and) grain much to the 





1The text is disfigured by running together the mention of the mother (Arsinoé) and the wife (Cleopatra) of 
king Ptolemy V. Epiphanes. 

* We should expect the dative “to.” The sign m was begun like the hawk (utr), which sign follows 
directly. ‘The engraver tried then to correct the faulty text in a vague way. 

’This poetic expression for “reign, government”? hovers between the epithet ‘; “great” and mnht 
“‘benevolent”’ in the various places, as the signs are quite similar. 

4This use of ’7(y)w is very obscure and seems to be due to some misunderstanding. Is “thereof” merely 
an erroneous doublet of —sn “‘their’’? 

° Corruptions have arisen because the redactor thought he could put in place of the comparison with Horus 
(Ros. Gr., 10) another comparison with a god, 7.e., an abridged redaction of the Greek text, line 18 to 19: dpovritwy 
brws Ta eiOicueva TuVTEANTAL Tots BEois KATA TO TpooHKoV dpoiws 5é Kal Td Sikavoy Tacw arevemev KaBaTeEp ‘Epuns o peyas kal 
peyas, wrongly connecting this with 7a re mpds Oeods evepyerik@s Svaxeiuevos of line 10-11. Evidently a good example 
of hasty redacting. ‘The demotic text does not correspond strictly, and the corrected rendering above still 
remains uncertain, particularly my restoration of ni—, ent—é: ‘‘what is on the hand, what is necessary, becoming, 
customary, proper.’’ No m is visible above. Certain seems the emendation, sw;z. The restoration “kind god” 
is furnished by Damanhur II (corrected reading found by me after the stone in the Cairo Museum). 

® See Ros. Gr. 14 to 15, demot. 6, Damanh. 14. The Phila text is abridged. (Nb or hz disfigured to hb.) 

7 Thus after Ros. dem. 6. ‘The traces on plate 13, line 5a, do not agree sufficiently to allow many safe resto- 
rations. Possibly the Philz text is changed or corrupted. 

®Cp. Ros. dem. 6, near the end. ‘The remarkable determinative of divinity after mn seems to be kept here, 
but we must assume a strong disfigurement. 

° The e-wh-f ty “he added to give”’ of Ros. 6 has been modernized by the redactor, who then seems to have © 
mixed w3l: “to add,” and nb: “gold.” After noticing this, he or the copyist seems to have tried to repeat pr, 
which certainly is superfluous. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 33 


THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 





HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
gb 5c 
Lm r()w a ie ee oh roi. (Katy? | Fiat a ian ects 
from theshares (drduo.pa) from [the temples?] temples [of Egypt?]. [He left their shares from 
vineyards 
5d 
dy—ns(!)? hnb | . . . fel-hk-n nG)y  e-wn-n}-le-w 
(which) were paid (from) gardenland and gardens?] like? those which had been 
5e 
2] ’w-mn [my] wn fer? |") ty? seer ai pit: 
[and fields?| to remain [like] that which existed [since?] | [paid ?] under his father. 
[r]k [yt-f]  n-—[st-sn?] 
the time (of) [his father] at [their place? 7. e., former 
condition]. 
5c ¥ 
[Ray | -n?] km E-ty(?)-f woy{-w](2) 
[(There) gave| His Majesty He gave (that) were remitted . 
5f 
wn hr [pr—-n—st?| | tsw hn-e hspt 
(that which) was with (7. e., due to) [the government](?), [the faxes of 9] the nomes (?!) until year 
5g 
toast?) x": X LX n—yhw-m;(?) | hn‘(?) n-s‘nhw 
(should) be [remitted’ to the roth year?] 19,’ (of?) the new(?) fields?’ and(?) the revenues 
m ([hir?]w nw s|‘nh?] h‘ | nm n-(?) yhw(?) 
With [the duJes of the fields of revenue(?) and | and the(?) [divine domains ?] 
5d ‘ 
yiwe hmw-ntr(?) n 
the office (-tax) (of) the prophet(s) (2) for the 
6a 
pr-[n-st?] _n(?) 'r—n{ f ?] shy' | ¢y(?) ht(?) nb(?) de) pes 
[royal] house, not(?) did [he] exercise the right giving [silver, gold (and) grain(?) much?] 











1 We should expect ‘‘(the shares) of the gods”’ (nirw), after Ros. demot. 9, and we are tempted to read or 
to emendate (m, etc.) thus. 

* Correct dy-sn. The disfigurement has caused the loss of the preposition 1. 

* Ros. Gr. 15-16? This would rather require: that which was due to the temples! 

4Seems to be demotic shy, shy, syh, syh, infinitive, or noun sht, sht, of the ordinary contract formula, which 
Griffith, Rylands Pap., 203; compared with Copt. shishi “power, might,’’ evidently too narrowly, as the masculine 
derivation p-—shish “ vengeance’ ’ shows, for which the analogy of the Greek éixn, “right”? and ‘‘punishment,”’ 
forms the connection. 

*The text of Ros. (Greek 14 to 15, demot. 8 to 9) seems to have been shortened here, in both versions, 
combining the ovvrates and the daméoyuo.pa, etc. ‘Therefore, I have not dared to restore too closely after the 
early model. ‘The most important guide for us is the trace of h(e) “‘like.”’ 

° The text looks like ’n—bn ‘‘to bring bad,”’ which, of course, would be senseless. I do not understand the 
single groups as reproduced on the plates and must help myself by assuming here strong corruptions. In the 
translation I have corrected boldly after Ros. Greek 16, demot. 9 end, Damanhur 15. For the obscure pronun- 
ciation of the preposition ‘‘at the time of, under,’’ see p. 41, note Ir. 

7 This shows that the remission of taxes not paid during the revolution in “the nomes,”’ 7. e., “‘the inland,” 
is meant. 

° This group resembles the orthography of m} (e. g., in Copt. mue, mui, ‘‘island,” or m;y, ““new’’), but must 
have a different meaning here. 


34 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 

hr-[s]n [hr-?] tp(?)  ri)w | &w ty(?) nt(u)(?)[-w]? . 

with them! (7.e., due to them) over(?) the shares | They gave (i.¢., caused) that(?) [was] . 
(i. e., taxes) 

[(m—?2] (hnt?) tsw ww wbw 

[from?] among(?) the appointments(?)? to(?) the priests 

ge 

he | C)h(w)t nw sht(?) 

and the things (i.e., work) of the weaving 

mrtyw rdyt(!)-n hm-f 


(of) serfs, (there) permitted His Majesty 
nfry(!)-r hspt XIX(?) hm(?)—sn 
until year 19(?) what they had forgotten (?)% 
ey 
[(m?|y n(?) trw(?) | hk’ kt-()h(w)t m 


as in (their) [part,time?] and otherthings in 


inw [‘3?] rdy(t)4 st hm-f 
number [great?], (there) gave them His Majesty 


[7] i : 
[to] the ground (i. e., dropped, remitted, them). 
61 6b 
[S-]www | -sn ’sk 'w(l) pq, | Wy-f n(?)® 'r ~ [n-?] rl?) 
They remitted also of (?)® byssus He remitted to make [the?| shares(?) (of) 
r(\)w myd pel!) ssw nst(?)w nt 
the shares, the piece(s) of byssus the “royal” (7.e¢., fine) linen (pieces) which 
6c 
[h?|r pr-n-st é-bnp-w’r | hn n—|nt 
(which were) with (i.¢., due to?)® the government ; had not been made among _ those [which 
6b " 
ag te ah fire 2 med 
rw—m;‘t_ nfry(!)— r hspt XIX,| @w-'r-w n  pr-pr- (2) nm m—rpyw 
ae ao temples fry) | sah 19. were made for the government (?) in the temples?]? 


Ne .. 6. « «ey pe 
which (they) owed(?) [to year XIX?]. 








1’This seems to correspond with Ros. Gr. 16, about the remission of the tax for every priestly office. It is 
strange, however, that in the hieroglyphic version (Damanh. 15), as well as in the demotic (Ros. 9), the wording is 
sovery different, while otherwise our text follows the original edition as much as possible. ‘Then, numerous difficul- 
ties in detail still need elucidation, above all the groups preceding shy, where I can not find duw=7r6 reXeorixov, which 
we should expect. This tax here seems to be entirely remitted, while (Ros. Greek 16) the remission was only partial. 

27 have tried to understand ¢s(w) according to its Coptic meaning (not according to the old sense 
“districts’’). The preceding group is not easily explained as hnt for hn “within, among, out of’’ (nor as 
part of hnt-S(y) “‘garden-land”’). So I feel uncertain whether the same income from the temples is still meant. 

3 We should expect: “what they lacked, in what they were behind.’ ‘The above proposed reading hm-—sn 
‘“‘what they had forgotten”’ or ‘“‘had neglected”’ agrees well with this sense, but this ought to have a different 
determinative. The restitution [k]m—sn “they completed”’ would remain very obscure. Cp. Ros. Gr. 29. 

4’Thus for the ndy—y of the sculptor. Cp. Ros. hierogl. 2. 

5 A very archaic use of ’sk. The ’w=e can not be explained with certainty. If it was intended for the prepo- 
sition e, the construction might be understood as abandoned from “he commanded concerning the byssus,” but 
this would require lr, hi, or r—dbjt, etbe(t), as preposition rather than e. Above I have tried to explain e as a mis- 
take for en, the genitive-particle or (cp. 5d?) earlier em ‘“‘from.”’ 

° This seems to be the easiest reading, considering the very tempting traces over r as accidental. 

7 Everything in this line is very uncertain. The beginning seems to be analogous to Ros. dem. 17, Gr. 29: 
the remission of many arrears in money and grain (thus above?) to the temples. 

® We should expect at least ¢ “‘to,”’ but the whole group might be disfigured for r}w ‘‘shares’’ (?). 

* Thus after Ros. dem. 10. This passage has, however, been changed considerably in our text (complete 
remission in place of a partial one). 


— ar 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 35 


THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. : DEMOTIC TEXT. 
6d 
Ws(y)-sn 'sk” ’we- sbwit  s(?). . [  Hn-w-s ‘n | el-tbs¢ 
They ordered also [concerning?] [the artaba] (They ordered (it) furthermore] concerning 
6c 
s[tt m?] hnbw nw [ntrw?] | h' rth I sh [e-wn—n}—éew 
(of) [the arura frora] the fields of [the gods?] and | the one artaba (of) each arura-measure [which was 


6 





s—nbw (read: stt/) oe ss a | SEY OMI n(?)—yhw' on n- | nirw nm 
the arura (stone: anybody!) [from the vineyards of?] | collected from] the fields of the gods and 

nirw r rdy(t) dy—sn n(w?)—yhw* lly’ = [nm n—htp—ntr 
the gods in order to cause (that) be given the(ir?) fields (of) vineyards [of the divine domains 
. Se n n—-ntrw wy-f e-rw-| 
(this to the ground, 7. e., remitted ?)! of the gods, he (?)* remitted these.] 

6d 
[M?] -twiw | [m . . snb r 


And _ that be [not taken anybody for the 


kbnwt?| m _— qdt 
galleyjs as [crew?] 


of 
Ssp—w(?) C)ht my n_ 32(?)d-wt , Gy | n—mt(w)|-phi(i)w e n-—ntrw 
They undertook(?) thing(s) as not were said? | [Nowconcerning the dlues (or: honors) for the gods, 
(7. e., reported ?) 





1 A very difficult passage. It corresponds with the Rosettana and the demotic version (see this) in general, 
but the remark about “anybody” or ‘‘everybody” can not be fitted in, if we do not assume that a confusion with 
the passage speaking of the abolition of “‘the press system”’ for rowers for the navy (Ros. Gr. 17, dem. 10, Damanh. 
16) has been committed in both texts (!?). After all, the most plausible explanation is that the hieroglyphic text 
has, following the demotic version as its model, misread ‘one artaba’’ to rome(t) ““man”’ (cp. on this possibility 
the remarks on the demotic text) and has tried to improve this senseless reading by adding the word nb ‘‘every.” 
By this emendation we obtain a reading perfectly parallel with the demotic text, only that the artaba and the 
keramion seem identified here. ‘The space and the traces make the restoration ‘‘(it?) to the ground” (sw? r £)) 
very difficult. As the general sense of a remission is certain, apparently a shorter synonym was used here (‘‘they 
gave the back to it’’ s} r-s?) or something similar. 

? After the couple of determinatives, which we can recognize, it would seem as though the passage mentioned 
the pressing of civilians as rowers of the war-galleys (Ros. Gr. 17) among the practices abandoned by the reforms 
of the king. But it is true that the hieroglyphic text (Damanhur 16) can not easily be harmonized with our traces; 
therefore, at least our text must have been redacted strongly to differ so widely. Our restoration s—nb “‘anybody”’ 
is taken from 6c, where this group is out of place, as shown above. ‘The group 2d is not quite certain; $d—tw “‘it 
was collected, demanded,”’ however, would hardly be possible without a determinative. Cp. note r. 

8 Without Ros. dem. 17, Gr. 30, it would hardly be possible to decipher these groups. The article p— is dis- 
figured; the sign for “artaba”’ is so indistinct that I read it rm(t)w: ‘‘people”’ for a long time; the sign for “‘arura”’ 
is hazily engraved or stands over an erasure. 

4T read after Ros. 17. Our stone offers indistinct, senseless traces, as though the engraver had erased his 
blunders and had forgotten to reengrave the passage, omitting the auxiliary verb “it was,”’ etc. 

° This is in Ros. “‘the fields of the divine domain(s)” n—yhw (n) p-htp—ntr. Here corrected as above. 

® Also these groups corrected over. The dot after the plural article »— looks as though the engraver had 
thought of the possessive form new, neu, for a while. ‘This may be accidental, however. After Ros. the word 
“a jar’ (kepauov) has been omitted before these groups. 

7 A single stroke represents i/y, as often in the cursive script of contracts. 

SOr wy-w “they remitted,” 7. ¢., king and queen? ‘The whole decree is very inconsistent, ascribing the 
benefits sometimes to the king alone, sometimes to the royal couple. 


36 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 





HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
6e 69 cr 
m-—(?) [hr—-h3t?] | [dy(?)-sn?] wn tr-w | é-w s—mn[-w?] nt(u)—w ty 
[beforehand ?], [letting them?] be(?) allofthem they established [them?]* and they took 
6h 
[—sn?] n{ty?] myfwey mil. 4 . o 2 0. 
[them?] From those [which (were?)] oppressive(?) of(?) | (away)® [the taxes for the service of the Goddess Phila- 
7a 
phy(w?) ty C)h(w)t on ee tw «6 ote es ae 
the honors(?),! taking (away?) the thing(s) of delphe and the Gods Philopator as being burdensome 


(i. e., taxes for) 
6f 
| wdnw nw [ntrt?| sn(w)—mrt . . n-rm(t)w nb(?) 


the sacrifices of [the Goddess?] Loving the Brother | to] the people all (?) 
h‘ ntrwy mr(wy) (y)twy. 
(Philadelphe?)? and the Gods Philopator. 





’'Skw rdy—-n hat nb(t) 
Also gave the queen, the mistress 
74 7b B 7c 
iwy | QOrw’w;prdr;(t) snt hmt Pr—‘t Glwptré t-snt t | shmt n 
of both countries, Cleopatra, the  sister-wife The queen Cleopatra, thesister (and) wife of 
n Salt Piw;rwmy(s ‘nh 
of the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, living 
at, Pth mr SiON Dlr www st ee 
forever, beloved of Ptah, [presents of?]* ki[ng Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, 
sie ey 7d 
hz, nb, | Swt-nb(t) n—[m;‘t] mt—pht (1) w - Weegee 
silver, gold, allstones [genuine] (7. ¢., precious), | gave] (signs of) honor [of gold, silver, stones] 
my—‘s 3 [kt?-|w (2) m ‘(t) ‘S(y?) n n—kt(1)—w® 
in great quantity for [the others?] (of) genuine’ in great quantity for the others — 











1 Two words, the sense of which remains doubtful for the present. For py I have compared the demotic ~ 
mt—pht(y): “that which becomes, is due, honor.”” ‘The trace of the determinative might point to the arm with 
a hook (or to the plural ending -w?). The /;-sign of m(y)}w seems to be certain, although on the stone it looks 
more like the ideogram (s)mn. ‘The word means “ weighty, burdensome.”’ 

2 This means Arsinoé, the sister and wife of Ptolemy II. The group which I have restored to “goddess ”’ 
might be merely the feminine article, 4. ‘The above expression refers to the arduopa of one-sixth, from gardens 
and vineyards, formerly paid to the temples, then transferred to the royal house, under pretext of a cult to the 
divine queen, which began in her lifetime. (See Mahaffy, Empire of the Ptol., 143.) That cultwas based, I believe, 
principally on the return to the old institution of sister-marriage, by which the royal house of Egypt once had 
imitated the gods. The above expressions referring to it are very remarkable, trying to disguise the material 
aim of the institution. The true character of that tax is, however, betrayed by its parallelism with what is 
mentioned before as oppressive usage. (The orthography of sm “‘brother’’ with the phonetic complement nw is 
not rare in Greco-Roman time. The graphic arrangement of the groups, with the object written before the verb 
and pronounced after it, is the same archaism which we find in the name of Ptolemy ‘beloved of Ptah,” 
written Pth—mr(y). 

3 The space somewhat narrow for this? An indistinct bird only visible. 

* Not participle: “(they being established)” as written here. Cp. Ros. Gr. 33, dem. 19. 

° Apparently thus, although the ornamental filling stroke (usually a dot) under the sign ty is not regular in 
our text. : 

° Not the usual orthography for the plural of kt, but archaic. 

’’Thus rather than [¢-w] my-—‘sy, which would be too remarkable an archaism for demotic. 


‘THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 37 


THE ROYAL BENEFITS—Continued. 








HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
‘ ‘ : e 
r[p]‘y[we] (2) [ntrwt nw] Bat n shmw | n n- ntirw e(!) t}R-Kmy 
the idols _—_ [of the goddesses(?) of] Egypt of (the) statues of the gods(!) of Egypt, 
7f 
ew. | 
; they [doing everything i in their fonor 2 
h’(?) ['hwt?|-nir(?)-[sn?] | hr- ’r(é) [e] ty) ’r-w hbw e(?) n-ntrw n 
and(?) [their(?) divine things ?] making [to] let be made festivals for® the gods of 
“bwt slqr wdn 
sacrifices, [pouring out of libations(?) 
holocausts(?) and the rest of the things ‘done(?)] 
79 
n rpr?jw nw  nirw ee ih-Kmy | nm  n-nirwt tr—-w 
in (?) the temples of the gods [of Egypt?] Egypt and the goddesses all together . 
B (?) (mirwi? . . || 
and (?) [all the goddesses ?] 
7d 7h 
8a 
hr htpw(?) -sn hr hwt(?) [-sn]| |. . 2. mm n[w?] ‘rpyw. 
for(?) their cults(?) together with [their] temples(?). - » « ~» and (?) the(ir?) temples. 
(or: estates ?) 
THE THANKS OF THE GODS. 
7eé 8b 
| [| (m?-)’swy nn |] rdy-n nirw etic cs ha (Auepeke ane ann tae C8: 
[In return for these things]? have given the gods (The gods have given in return for] these( ?) 


nirwt |nw|] Bgt r—[zr?|-sn*(?) [rnpwt?]* | mt-nfr(!) 
(and) goddesses [of] Egypt all together(?) [years?] kindnesses 


7f 
‘S(w) m  q{[nw] | nhti ‘nh, ws; 
many in mitht, strength, life, welfare, 
snby n n—St ’byty 


health, to the king of U. and L,. Egypt, 











1 The traces make the restoration ntrw, ‘‘gods’’, of which we should think first very difficult. If we have to 
restore 7[p]°y[w#], this word, limited to female statues, alone requires a limitation of the gifts to ‘“‘the goddesses.”’ 
This shows the queen as feeling herself one of the goddesses in mentioning the goddesses first or exclusively. 
(The demotic betrays its confusion of “gods” and ‘“‘goddesses”’ in the feminine form ‘‘others’’). Meaning: the 
queen renounced an income from an alleged cult? 

* After Ros. hierogl. 5. Possibly for mm “‘these things’’ a fuller expression is to be restored. 

’ The traces would then seem to be accidental. 

*The trace below would suggest that the ideograph stood between the determinative (?) and the plural 
strokes, but it is of rather peculiar shape. I first read it mw. The text certainly varies from the Rosettana. 

* A verb ought to follow in this construction, which is usually “‘participial’’, according to the usage of Coptic 
grammar. 

° Instead of (e)x. 

7 Incomplete group. 


38 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE THANKS OF THE GODS—Continued. 





HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
8c 
5; R Piwyrwmys ‘nh — 2t n pr-' Ptlwmys | ‘nh st 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, living forever, | to the king Ptolemy, living forever, 
Sa 
Pth mr | [h‘ s]nt hmt-f hat ee 
beloved of Ptah, [and hlis sister-wife, the queen | [beloved of Ptah, and the queen Cleopatra] 
8d 
nbt iwy Orw)p3dr;(t) [n-] | ntrw nt pr qn(?) nht(?) 
(and) mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, [the] Gods Epiphanes, might(?) of strength(?)4 
nirwy pbr(wy) hr—s-[mn?| n—w'(?) 
the two Gods_ Epiphanes,  [establishing(?) together(?)° 
toe ee om Berl fF? ] 7 ntu-w(?) [ty?] nw—'wt(?)—pr—‘(?)8 
their throne (?)]! in the whole land, and they [give?] their royal(?) dignity(?) 
ab. 8f 
| [ywt-s]n—wrt dd|wt?| Ariesnle PON Ck. 3 nn ae 
their great [dignity] consolidated for them? and | [established in the whole land for them and their 
[m|s[w-sn] [r] at [hrt(i)]}w(?) sat. 
[their] children [to] eternity. childrJen forever. 


HONORS FOR KING AND QUEEN. 

é 89 
H‘ — shn-n{fr] Pods 5, Se oe Nm p-shné nfr | ph(?)-s’  [n- 
With good luck [it entered into the heart of With goodluck it has reached(?) [the] 


PE Ae Sed oil! Sa gh Mhyt hi(i)w(?) (nm) nm-.... . . ne 
the priests of the temples of Up]per (and) Lower Egypt | heart(s?) of the [priests of the temples of Egypt 





8d 
my-qld|-sn | .[s-]wr . . ... . «tyre - 
all together [to in|Jcrease [the honors? of| all together, with regard to] 
oa 
sj—R‘ Pirwmys ‘nh — at, | mi—pht(i) . . . Ptlwmys ‘nh  [2t, 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, living forever, the honors (of) [king] Ptolemy, living [forever, 





1’The above restoration makes that which follows appear as somewhat repetitious, and is, of course, only one 
of many possible guesses (‘“‘kingdom,”’ etc.). “The redactor has, indeed, tried to enlarge Ros. 5 in a way which 
must involve some pleonasms. é 

2 Comparing this with Ros. hierogl. 5. The ideogram for “‘dignity”’ is possible, although not clear. Behind 
dd the sign above seems to be a rude book roll; below, nothing is certain. A large zg is probable, as trace of 
zt; other traces are only misleading. 

° Very difficult traces which are not favorable to the restitution [mdt—] pht or phyw (cp. 6e). 

4 We should expect such, or a similar reading, after Ros. dem. 20, but the text engraved offers such difficulties 
that I know, so far, no better explanation for it than that it has been mutilated by a senseless contraction of the 
above words. ‘This hazardous explanation is, of course, very unsatisfactory and not convincing. Brugsch tried 
to obtain sense by violent changes of the signs in his copy. The second group, in which I have tried to find nht 
“strength,” is written like ’wt(i)—w “‘ between them,” from which hardly any sense can be gained. ‘Thus it seems 
to need an emendation; see above. It might also be explained as having the group “‘ (their) children’’ worked into 
it, which we find below. ‘The first group would permit also the theory that it meant rmpwt “years” before its 
disfigurement. 

5 Not a satisfactory explanation, because m—w‘ in this sense would be a strong archaism. (Brugsch’s ’rw= 
Coptic er(r)ou “towards them”’ is both a bold forcing of the engraved text and senseless). 

® This is what we should expect after Ros. dem. 21, but the traces are again difficult, especially the alleged pr—. 

7 Or abbreviation for ‘g-s: “it has entered”’? The feeble stroke behind might be understood as a trace of 
the singular article p- (correctly in Ros. 21), either an abandoned attempt to insert it or erased erroneously. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 39 


HONORS FOR KING AND QUEEN—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 


8 
Orw’w;p;dr;(t) 


Pth mr Pere. °c 
beloved of Ptah, and [his ante wite] Cleopatra, 
ntrwy pr(wy) m(?) hnt(?) [Awt-] ntr 


the two Gods_ Epiphanes, [in the temples?]! 


CHO ees nirwy mr(wy) [ytwy| 


much(?) together with the Gods Philopator 
—sn? hé nirwy mnhwy 
| eh begot] them (!) and the Gods Benefactors 

[gm];—sn hé ntrwy snwy 

who created these, and the Brotherly Gods 

oa 

shp|r(?)  [-sn?] nirwy nzwy 

who begot [these], (and) the Gods Saviors, 

25(!)n(w)%-sn [glm;—sn. 


their ancestors, who created these. 


beloved of Ptah, and of queen Cleopatra, the] 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 
9b 


mr Pth UP bantrw 


Gods 


hn n-rpy(w) nm | n—nt 
the temples and those which 


nt pr 
Epiphanes, in 


nm n—nt 
and those which 


[mr—ytw 
| Philopator 


nirw 
Gods 


ni(u) _n- 
belong to the 


od 
mn || n—r- t(y)-hpr-w 
who begot them 


nt(u) nirw 
belong to the Gods Euergetes] 


n—nirw sn(w) 


ge 
nm n—nt nt(u) | 
the Brotherly Gods 


and those which belong to 


'r-t(y)-hpr [n—’r]-t(y)—  bpr—w nm 
who had begotten [those having] begotten them and 


n- [nt nt(u) 
those [which belong to the Gods 


e t(y)—‘y-w.] 


their forefathers, to increase them.]° 


n—nirw nt nhm 
Soter, 


THE ROYAL STATUES. 


ob 
Miwtw s-[‘h‘| rpyt | n hqt 
And be [set up] an image of the queen, 
nbt-t,wy 
the mistress of both countries, 
Orw’w,pwdr;(t), snthmt n s, R 
Cleopatra, the sister-wife of the son of the Sungod, 
oc 
Ptw;rwmys ‘nh | [stl Pth mr 
Ptolemy, living [forever], beloved of Ptah, 
nirwy pr(wy) [h?]t m kt 


the two(!) Gods(!) Epiphanes, [. . 


1Cp. Ros. hierogl. 5. 


executed?] in work 


Visible are m (the key), the ear of hnt—head, the hawk utr, 


of 
Pee ee 


[And be set up] an 


t—pr—‘t 


the queen 


rpyt 


image 


(of) 


99 
| Glwptré <i yp oa eee eee ee 
Cleopatra, [the (sister?)-wife of king Ptolemy, living 
i [e-h 
forever, beloved of Ptah, the God Epiphanes, according to 
ypt n 2AM S91 es 


Egyptian (?) sculpture (?)-style to be placed (?) into 








©) 


, incorrectly for ‘ }¢. 


2’'The plural mechanically placed according to the following enumeration, while the second decree seems to 


have the correct limitation to ‘“His Majesty” (73d). 
3 Read: 2fn(w). 


The following relative sentence here only as superfluous addition. 


Comparison of the other 


decrees will show that the synonyms for ‘‘parents’’ are carefully selected and kept in a fixed, climatic order while 
the demotic does not possess a literary style sufficiently developed to imitate those variations. 
“ Head, two (3?) feet, and less distinct traces of the wings of a rather rudely sketched bee are visible. 


® Thus, following the version of Ros. dem. 22. 


40 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL STATUES—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 
od 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 


msntyw; | ‘h‘i-[s?]} r gs (m;3— nt- wnh?| 'rpy—nb 

(of) the sculptors (which) stands(?) at the side of | the (most) prominent place?] (of) Bs ler 

[Ane ae 2 ey ode ir dn t—Kml|y yr Pilwmys, 
[the image] of [her husband?],2 the son of the Sun, | (of) Egypt [at the side of the i image of king] Ptolemy, 

ge 

Ptw;rwmys ‘nh at Pth mr | ‘nh at Pth mr p- nir nt pr 

Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, living forever, beloved of Ptah, the God Epiphanes, 

[ntr pr] ok saan nm p-twt p—[ntr 

[the God Epiphanes,| [together with the together with the image of the [god 

[ntr—tp?] piwt(?)*—ntr t—p,wt(?)? 
highest(?) god of] the (local) divine company of the divine circle 
hr-rdt nf hps nm qn e-f ty n—f hps qny 
giving to him the sickle sword of victory, who is giving to him a sickle sword of victory, 

of 
ht hrs py 1 shilwy?].) (rm rr 
sculptured on(!)‘ that decree which made (as) engraved on(?!) the decree of the priests of 
1od 

wbw [nw] prw-m;‘t(?) n hspt® IX(?)| | ’rplyw(?) n(?) hspt IX?) 
the priests [of the] temples in the year 9(?) the temp]les [from] the year  9(?) 
a he Ae oa S} R' Ptwrwmys| n pr—-‘ | Ptlwmys ‘nh at 
[Mesoré 9?|° of the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, of king Ptolemy, living forever, 

‘nh _ et, Pthmr, hr Pth mr hr nf—|mt?|—qnw(?) 
living forever, beloved of Ptah, containing beloved of Ptah, containing his victories 











1The reading Bgt, ‘(the sculptors of) Egypt,’’ which we should expect after Ros. Greek 39, demot. 23, Philz 
II, 14c, can be forced only with difficulty on the stone; the big oval hollow, in which I first tried to find the sign bg, 
is secondary. ‘The traces look most like a broad ‘h‘ with a small ‘Ain stuck through it and, after’a gap, an s. 
This yields, of course, an awkward construction where we should expect, at least, the causative verb: s— ‘h‘ 
“it shall be established.”’ (The mention of “Egyptian style’? must stand in the gap before jh). 

2 We should expect  h;y-s, as above restored, but the traces are very different. After the rather probable 
high 2 (the crown), there seems to stand an irregular, very broad ; the traces under its nearer end like two 
legs (?). Read simply: “‘the king of Upper and Lower Egypt’’? 

’ The sense is secured by Ros. Gr. 39, ‘‘the chief god.” Tp “‘first, chief,’ is extant only in uncertain traces, 
and p;wt (or pszt?) “divine cycle, divine company,” is engraved as though it was misread nw. Cp. the “‘second’”’ 
decree, lines 15), 15d, for an apparently different treatment of the same expression. 

‘We imitate the ambiguity confusing the flat pictures on the stela and the portable statues in the round. 

* More favorable to the reading XIX (cp. 13d), but see the demotic. 

°I first thought of the date, not of the priestly convention at which the decree was passed, but of the day 
when the victory was reported to the king, and read “year XIX,” seeing an abnormally large and straight X in 
the two strokes over and before the IX and then, before these, the abbreviation for “‘year.”” The latter group, 
however, seems to be the last signs of ’rpyw “‘temples’’; therefore the expression “‘year’’ is to be found in those 
two strokes behind, so that we have to read “‘year [X.’’ Consequently, the decree of Rosetta is meant, especially 
its lines 22-23. ‘The priests evidently thought that the time was too short to execute the honors to the king set 
forth in the decree of year XIX, and rather connected the new honors with those of year IX without considera- 
tion of the fact that the latter had not been executed in many temples, owing to the insurrection. See ‘‘second”’ 
decree, hierogl. 75c, for the question of a reference.: 

7’ Thus the group (Ros. dem. 23) is to be read. See Rhind, Gloss. Moeller, No. 126. 


(Less probably t-pszt: 
“‘the circle of nine, the.ennead’’?) 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 4] 


THE ROYAL STATUES—Continued. 





HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
rw gn[w-f(?) mts|w 
the reports! (of) the victories of him(?) and thlat 
ob of : 
ee. - | («dL Lm é[']qw nw . hi-nir hake tes a es ’rpywl[—nb| 
[the priests officiating] as? attendants of thesanctuary|....... . . .. . [in] [all] temples 
n(?)> r—prw—nb [hr|—rn[—f} RY/TAY 
in all temples on (i.e. bearing) [his] name* serve 
hntyw—’pn msp III | [m &rit)? hrw! 
theseimages three times [every(?) day] 
[h?\r—-rdt° dbhw(t?)® [m—b;h-sn nt(u)—w hy tbh if 
placing (sacred) apparatus [before them and that they set (sacred) apparatus before 
ew lw MD HH)" — niu) —w 'r n-w  ([p-sp 
and do to them] all [things prescribed],’ them and that they do tothem [the rest 
rod Ioh 
twiw(?!)—nb(?) | ntt?] ’r[—-tw(?) mt—nt-n—hp e-h | p-nt é-w—r-f 
everything(?) becoming which is done(?) (of) the things lawful like what they do 
hr?\ s—h' [ntrw] n nt(!) n|-k’’w | ntrw [n—|hbw 
bring[ing] out in procession [the gods] of thecity(?)®| (to) the] other gods (at) the festivals 
hbw tb trwt(/)® hr new n* 


at the festivals (of) each season and the days of 








' Lit. ‘the chapters.” 

> The n=m, ‘‘as,” suggests this restitution. 

* A very short m (in place of the older preposition m). 

* That is: where the king finds worship. 

» Accidentally the r indistinct so that we think of its disfigurement to ’v, Ros. 7; also the following r is corrected. 

° The engraver seems to have been uncertain with the last sign of the word. Probably his copy on papyrus 
had the sign for ‘‘metal.’”’ ‘The word dblit has wider sense than the Greek expression fepds xdcyos, ‘sacred outfit”’ ; 
it includes also sacrificia] vessels, etc. The pronunciation dbht for the unusual ideograph of the corresponding 
passage, Ros. 7, is to be noticed. (There that ideograph seems to be disfigured from a square sacred chest 
(mrt?) with ostrich plumes.) 

7 Although we know the general sense, the traces do not allow any safe identifications of special signs. The 
second (lower) sign after the big gap does not seem to be x. 

_ ® The stone shows that the reading n—nt ‘‘of the city, local ones’ has been corrected over the earlier reading 
spt(yw) of Ros. 7 and 8, ‘‘of the nomes”’ (as still is read in the earlier ‘‘second’’ decree 15a). Also “‘is done”’ 
stands over erasures. : 

* Literally ‘‘times, periods.” (In Ros. 7, the ordinary ideogram #7; therefore I assume that the termination 
-t is abusive, taken from the ¢ on which the ideogram often rests, so that the group looks like “‘year.’’) 

The sculptor seems to have corrected a broad s into 1; the sign could be read either way. 

"T do not dare to transliterate this obscure group. J. J. Hess read it (Ros. 9, 24) e-hre, overlooking com- 
pletely the third sign. This alone proves that it is to be read quite differently (although the Egyptian engraver, 
Ros. 25, made the same mistake of skipping this sign). In Ros. the second stroke is always bent strongly, almost 
to a half circle. Canop. 15, 16, indeed, has the first two strokes straight, like é, but our text agrees with Ros. 
in the second stroke and treats the first like b. ‘That the last sign is not hr can be concluded from the addition 
of -¢ in Philze, once written tu, once fe, ti; 7. e., like the abbreviation of fo(0)t “‘hand.’’ In place of hr we might, 
_ therefore, try to read ¢i, but the whole group, evidently, consists of abbreviations. I can not think of a hiero- 
glyphic or Coptic preposition including both the meanings “‘at the time of’’ and “‘before’’; certainly hieroglyphic 
hr does not correspond, nor m-h;(w), n-h;. See above, p. 33, line se. 


42 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL STATUES—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 


h‘ sy?) on rn-f n-h‘w [n—hw]w 
procession, also! (?) of his(!) name (i. e., specially | (of?) the processions, [on the dlays (bearing) 


consecrated to him!) 
roe 


| [miwtw sh‘ s¥mt-hwt? ; 
[and be brought out in procession] the venerable 1N—-W nt(u)—w t(y)—h 
statue(!) | their name,‘ that they bring out in procession 
[1 halt nbt wy 
[of the queJen, the mistress of both countries, 
rof r1b 
Orw’w;p;dr;(t) | [ ntrt| pr(f) t | [rpyt n_ pr-t ie 
Cleopatra, [the Goddess] - Epiphanes, the [statue of queen Cleopatra, 
[sut]-hmt n n—st ’byty t-snlt t-s(t)-hmt (mn) pr- 
the sister-wife of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, | the siste]r (and) the wife of king 
. R Ptw;r;mys ‘nh at Pilwmys | ‘nh at Pth mr 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, _ living forever, Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, 
Pth mr [ntr] pr : p—ntr [nt pr] 
beloved of Ptah, [the God] Epiphanes, the God [Epiphanes]. 





THE ROYAL SHRINE. 


Ila 
| [S—h'?] kit Sps(!) om zm 
[Be set up?] ashrine, acostly one, of (fine) gold,’ 
(or: sacred) Pe 
mh m i end m rprw—nb ‘e 


inlaid with stones (of) all (kinds) in all temples 





1This very difficult group, which has given much trouble to Egyptologists, I propose to treat as a particle 
belonging to the vernacular language. So, at least, our redactor seems to understand this mysterious group. In 
the original form of Ros. 7, h‘ sy h(rw)-f m(/) rn-f, the meaning is the same, though the position of the particle 
is different, 7. e., it seems to be there a particle strengthening the /:‘ “‘and, with.’’ Could the Coptic particle ee, e 
be compared? ‘The latter, however, has become so strongly confused with the Greek ei, that we can not separate 
the Egyptian and Coptic meanings clearly. (I thought, at first, of a corruption of ;t “time.” ‘This explanation 
would yield only very forced literal translations; nevertheless the particle ;}y might have originated from }t “time,”’ 
less probably the Coptic ee, ve, according to what we know of the phonetic development of later Egyptian). I see 
now that Revillout, in his Chrestomathie Démotique, understood the particle correctly (“‘aussi’’). Phila, II, 15a, 
shortens the passage considerably, but very unsuccessfully. It is noticeable how anxious the copyists are to pre- 
serve the strange words and forms of their model, considering them as stylistic gems. 

2’The signs behind sSmt are indistinct. The fist holding the whip is clear and at first made me think of a 
§ps run together with the 7 underneath; but the sign Sps below looks different and other details make that 
reading uncertain. (The oblique broad crossing-stroke is secondary.) During the impression I saw that we 
have nothing but the arm holding the whip (hw) and a poor f: over it. For this adjective “‘sacred, holy” ep. 
line r1b, and Ros. 7, in both cases used with a statue. 

8 The original meaning of this word: “light gold, electrum,” is retained no more in later time. ss ps signifies: 
“fine, costly, magnificent,’’ as well as “holy, sacred.” ; 

*T. e., special memorial days for the gods, bearing their name in the calendar as their nuépar émevupor. Cp. 
Phil, II, demot. 12c, hierogl. 15a (much disfigured). Without the context the above demotic expression could 
also be translated: “‘the days mentioned (before).’’ ‘The hieroglyphic parallel is corrupted; see on the ‘“‘second”’ 
decree. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 43 


THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
hr rn—f 

on (7. e., bearing) his name, 

IIb 

[miwiw . . . —wi' | twt’—hw ee ee ed age pra 
[and be ___ placed there] the venerable image of king 

n n-st byty S} R 

of theking of Upper and L. Egypt, theson of [the Sun], 

Piw;yrwmys, ‘nh — 2t, Pth |mr| h‘ | Ptlmwys | ‘nh at Pth mr 
Ptolemy, living forever, [beloved of] Ptah, with | Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, 
[shmt}’— n ntr n | [snt|-hmt-f hat nm p-shnt(i)t(!) (n?-) ntr n_ tf-[shmt 

the divine statue of his [sister]-wife, the queen | with thestatue(!),’? (the) divine,* of his [wife, 

nbt [Awy ee ce DE ia ee Sees 5 ot a OMIA 

and mistress [of both countries, Cleopatra, the queen, Cleopatra, the Goddess Epiphanes] . 

11f 
ntrt?| prt) [mtwtw?| s—[htp— |hn-s nt(u)—w t(y)-[htp?-s ep-| mw‘b 
the Goddess?] Epiphanes, [and be] put init, and they shall deposit(?)” [it in the] holiest place 

, Iid Iig 
s} m | b— zsr® ae [k;wi] nw| nm n-k’’(w) | g;(wt)™ 

[this]* in the holi(est) place [with] the shrines of | with the other shrines 








* Perhaps the passive -fw was placed after the verb “‘ be placed.” 

* Notice the transliteration fwt of the unusual ideogram of Ros. 

* The narrow place allows only this word (written with the sistrum); cp. the demotic equivalent. 

* S[-htp] to be supplied after Ros. demot. 25, while Ros. hierogl. 8 has the simple verb itp “‘rests.”’ 

* The foot of 6 is not to be seen with certainty; the determinative “‘house”’ is strangely rounded and enlarged 

by secondary additions. ‘The vertical, filling dash above is visible only with imagination. Nevertheless, the 
reading is rather certain. Cp. Ros. 8. 
; ® To see an r under the lion requires some imagination; the following (-t and determinative of the house?) is 
quite invisible. (The reading gsr has its origin from a lion holding a feather, which sign, in hieratic, looks quite like 
the arm holding this symbol, so that both signs can be interchanged.) The hr “with,” which we should expect 
after Ros., is not readable; the ideogram ‘‘chapel” requires much imagination, and the following nw can be con- 
cluded only from the vertical stroke below. ‘Traces of the lower part of the sign spt seem to be visible. Of the 
‘r—r-f (lit., “referring to it, as concerns it’’) only the f seems to be easily recognizable, if a large space below be 
admitted which may have been filled by a misplaced vertical stroke. Still we can risk restoring much after Ros. 
hierogl. 8, and the other traces agree. 

7 Written in a very peculiar way. ‘The scribe seems to have hovered between the two confused words shm/(t), 
shnty “statue” (cp. also the orthography sSmt, line roe, etc.), and the similar word shnty (=hieroglyphic shmit, 
shmty) “‘crown.’’ Notwithstanding the masculine article, a feminine ending -t is added mechanically, because 
the word is used of a goddess. The orthography is also otherwise hazy. ‘The parallel Ros. dem. 24 fortunately 
furnishes a plain sim ‘‘statue.”” See page 45, notes 1 and 5, about the difficulties with the obsolete word for 
“crown.” 

8 Literally the ‘“‘god-statue” (not with the adjective niry ‘divine,’ which ought to be written differently). 
See the parallel expression shm—nir in Ros. dem. 24. ‘The adjective, however, is required in English. 

* The big gap between plates e and f allows for the demotic text some additions or repetitions. 

” The traces are unfavorable to this reading and look rather as though the engraver really put down by 
mistake ¢(y)—/‘ ‘‘bring out in procession.”” Above the context has been followed, however, and Ros. demot. 25. 

" Strangely disfigured ligature for g}. The meaning, however, seems clear. 


44 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
nirw-sptyw. . |'r-r|-f  [m?] hrw-hbw . . . -t(?)-s N-~\. ae 
the local gods. When [at] the festival days before it (on)] the [great festivals (?) 
wrw n pr (t) nir | ls Se A gr: 
the great ones of the coming forth (of) a god when the gods come forth, etc.] 
[m gbht-f Sps|t(?) rwt(y), br-f’ 
[from his] holy [recess]' outside, (when) he comes out 
rth 
"’m—Ssn mtwtw s-h‘ |e-w(?) . . . = [nt(u)—-w t(y)—-]h‘ 
on them, (then) shall be brought out (also) they (?) . . . and [be] brought out in procession 
iif 12a 
kit- | Sps(t) ns ntrwy pr(wy) t-gjt | n nb(?) [a n-ntr nt pr] 
the sacred shrine of the two Gods Epiphanes the shrine of gold(?) [of the Gods Epiphanes] 
h'—sn. nm—w(?). 
with them (7. e., with the other shrines). with them. 
R-rdi_s’;—tw(?)* kt-tn E_ t(y)-hp(r)® éw-swn _ t-[g(t)? 
In order tomake (that) be known _ this shrine To effect (that) be known the [shrine 
r(/)t | hrw [-pn] ’w — hnw(??) p-hw nm p-sp t(t); mn-Ss;—S 
from this day to [future times],° today and theremaining time henceforth, 
mtiwtw dy nt(u)—w ty 
shall be given (7.e., placed) shall be placed 


! Lit. ‘‘cool-place,”’ 7. e., closet, recess, shrine. ‘The orthography of spst, which we should expect after Ros. 
would be strange. Possibly the synonym hwt is to be read instead of Spst as p. 42, roe, if we recognize the 
ending —wit. 1 

2 This remarkable orthography for (r)—rwt(y) and the following verb furnish a very valuable explanation for 
the strange groups, Ros. 8, which Chabas translated ‘“‘ad son jour,”” understanding them as r—s; h(rw)-f “after 
(i.e., according to!) his day,’”’ very improbably in both cases. We see now the text in Ros. is corrupted; the pr—f 
becomes intelligible only by our parallel based on a better copy, and the rwty (somewhat pleonastic at the side 
of the verb pr ‘“‘to come out’’) could hardly have been guessed correctly beforehand. ‘On them”’ refers 
back to the festival days, in a relative construction familiar in Semitic languages but looking very pleonastic 
in English. 

* Another instance where, if the stone was broken, we should feel confident to restore every sign according to 
the parallel text in Ros., while the extant traces are simply hopeless. Nothing certain can be seen of the word 
“to know’’ before the very plausible determinative of the squatting man putting his hand on his mouth. Before 
the chapel-sign the basis and the feeble body of a bird-like w seem clear at first sight, but the sign before this w looks 
more like a clumsy s than a s’. Before the chapel two small, vertical strokes, almost too deep for the first hand. 
I thought for a while of the ideogram sSm “‘to lead”’ with preceding phonetic complement s—, but neither will this 
do. ‘Therefore I have not attempted to harmonize between the conjectural restoration as given above after Ros. 
8 and the traces on the stone. It seems the engraver blundered strongly and then tried confusing corrections. 

‘The r is quite plain, but must be a mistake for m after Ros. and the similar error, p. 45, note 4. 

° Thus after Ros. Greek 43, dem. 25, but the identification of the extant signs is again very difficult. The 
sign jin “‘period, age, long time’’ seems visible, but the surrounding signs are quite uncertain, e.g., the group pre- 
ceding it is hardly sp “‘remnant, rest.” 

° The prolongation of lpr looking like —f seems rather an accidental scratch. 

’ The restorations are supplied according to Ros. dem. 25. ‘The space suggests additions in Philze. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 45 


THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
12b I2b 
shn(t)} hr-tp |- [Rk)t-in m—s(wy)—n | sh(?)nt n—-nb X ?] | hr(?) nb(?) 
a(!) double crown ontop of [this shrine instead of | ten(?) golden double crowns?], ona éb-hieroglyph(?)> 
wrty wnt) hr-tp] e® wit—r'yi e(?)-h p- | [nf] hp 
the two (kinds of) uraei? which are on top of] being an uraeus-asp like that [whichis] proper 
: (or: custom) 
kiwt 'y—-[s?] e n'—shn[ti?|ew(!)  n—nb(?) [n-z2 
the (ordinary) shrines, to make for the double crowns!] of gold [upon 
12d 
r(l)? shn(t) i-git = n-t-sbyt(?) tE‘r'ywt =| nil kpr 
(there) being (that) double crown the shrine instead of the uraeus-asps which] are 
m  hr-b —-()r(y)w zr—nit psd e-228 = [p-sp g,(wt)]. 
in the middle thereof, since (there) resplended | upon [the rest of the shrines]. 
n—st byty Ptw,rwmys Nt(u) (2) p-shnt(2)e(!) | hpr® n(?) t-mtét 
the king of Upper and L. Egypt, Ptolemy, (There) shall(?) the double crown be _ inthe middle 
‘nh a | Pth mr *m—f r(?) n mn-—sh(?)nt(1)w nt-e nt(u)f® nt—é 


living forever, beloved of Ptah, with it towards (?)* | of the crowns which is the (one) (with) which 





‘This orthography imitates the demotic form. It seems to betray that, in some parts of Egypt, and / began 
to be confounded as in Coptic pronunciation; also a popular etymology from s/n: ‘‘command”’ seems to underlie. 
In Ros., the sign 7d, originally the basis for the crown and not to be pronounced, has been detached erroneously(?) ; 
this reading, which our text avoids, might also be interpreted as “‘a double crown with a lord-sign (zd) under- 
neath.’”’ See note 5 on the demotic text for a possibility of finding this sense also there. ‘The demotic orthography 
in Ros. tries to distinguish shnt(i) as the ordinary, shnt(7) as the archaizing, solemn form of the word for “crown,” 
but fails in this distinction. See also above, on demotic line, p. 43, note 7, on the orthographic difficulties which 
this word gave to the scribes. 

? With allusion to the mythological double character of the uraeus serpents. ‘That the ornamental crowns 

_were to be ten (as Ros. states in the Greek and demotic text) is not expressed here and, consequently, does 
neither seem to have been expressed in the hieroglyphic text of Ros., which furnishes, in general, a very poor 
description of those details compared with the demotic version. 

* E(r) stands erroneously for the correct e(w) of Ros. as in the demotic parallel and often. 

* We should expect m ‘‘in” (Ros. 10) and the 7 might be disfigured from this (see above, rzf) but it is also 
possible that the writer, having in mind the demotic expression /‘ e(7) ‘‘ going in procession towards,” really meant 
(e)r “towards,” as written above. 

° The text is very puzzling. The model text (Ros. demot. 25) reads: ‘“‘and that be given (i e., placed) twin 
golden king’s crowns” (shnt n nb X (n) pr-’). The place on which those crowns are to be placed (i. e., the shrine) 
follows (1. 26). The unusual expression “‘of a king, royal’’ agrees with the Greek text, line 43: ras rou Bacthéws 
xpucas Baotdelas déxa, in which that expression seems doubly strange to us, being already contained in the likewise 

unusual word Baovdeia “‘sign of royalty, royal crown.” The demotic text of Phile, 726, could be brought into 
an approximative agreement by reading “‘king’”’ and seeing before it “‘gold” as a disfigured sign (or X?). I 
believe, however, that I recognize n— either as original reading instead of “king” or as half-finished correction of 
the latter word, and have tried to restore this sense, whether it be original or an improvement, after these traces 
and the hieroglyphic text. Cp. directly below (136) the same word, as nbé. This interpretation leads to assum- 
ing an exceptional independence of the demotic Phile text and can not be considered as quite certain, but 
the possibility of such a correction deserves,attention. 

-® Rather common, faulty orthography for ¢. See on the hieroglyphic parallel. 

7’The engraver made the e too vertical or, rather, treated s and e m— as a doublet. 

8 The traces look like this rather than like the ir—zz of Ros. 26. Notice the variants with /ir—, n—, and e-. 

*’ The e before hpr seems accidental or abandoned from “ which (e) is.” 

” An interesting parallel to Ros. dem. 26, which confirms the reading entof in that text and tries to express itself 
more clearly than the original decree, correcting the short relative e— before the verb to an apparent repetition mt-é. 


46 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
Ht-  [Pth] —_[m?] B‘(?) [—n-st?] pr-‘ [2 ’m-f AD 
the temple [of Ptah] [in the royal?] procession(?) the king [appeared (in procession) (therewith) in 
laf 
[m-s(f)}’r n—f t|wt?—nb n ht Mn-nfr é-w-|| ’r- nf 
[when were done to him] all things proper for the temple of Memphis (when) were] done to him 
I2d , 3 
[bs|-n-st | r ht-ntr hft p-hp ‘rw = (n) [p-S(s)p 
the royal procession to the temple, when the proper (things) done at [the receiving 
v ay ee I2g 
Sspinf —_ y,wt-f-wrt t- ’jJwt- | hr(t)® 
he received his great dignity, (of) the] high(est) dignity, 
mtwtw s-h' 
and be decorated‘ 
loma2 yey) PEF RHE) © Oe CONE Deptt az) p-shn(ti?)’ 
likewise(?) the shrine (?) [with the double crown | and the (double) crown(?) 
of the princess and mistress of both countries} 
12h 
Qrw'|wpsdr,(t) — nirt prt r—gs-f(?) | n(?) t(2)— pr‘t Glwpiré, | tf-h  [-s?] 


Cleopatra, | the Goddess Epiphanes, _ beside it (of) the(?) queen Cleopatra, likewise  [be?] 
miwtw [hr?-] 3t(2)— [tp?] n-mw [e—] tt(?)-f 


(7. e., beside the double crown of the king); and be on [top?] among them near it 
raf 13a 
|  rdy m gs—hr(y) n | nt(u)—w hy‘-s e(?)® t-+r(t)- hrt n(?) 
placed on the upper side(!) of and (it) be placed at the upper part of 


‘In the strange m-—s of Ros. the s is evidently se=set, sen ‘‘they.”” The m seems to follow the analogy of 
miw, Coptic (e)nte-, of the subjunctive, betraying already the shortening of the latter to (e)m, so that we have 
here the extremely modern form (e)nse ‘“‘and they’’ of both Coptic dialects. It is, however, not impossible that 
the unusual employment in temporal sense has been caused by the archaic conjunction ’, en “‘when, if” which, 
in mss. of the New Empire, often becomes m. 

* The ideogram of the ostrich feather of Ros. (ss) is explained here by a synonym. 

’ This sign in unusually low form, like dy, but the reading “‘was given (dydy) to him” would be unsatisfactory. 

4’The passage is not very clear. We expect the decorations of that shrine further described. The verb 
s-h‘, “to show,”’ may be understood also: “‘to make appear brilliantly, to decorate,’’ and the demotic text confirms 
that the crown of the queen was decoratively used at the side of the royal crown. Ordinarily, the double crown of 
the queen does not differ from that of the king; here, a combination with the vulture-cap seems to be meant (cp. 
13a). (If we give to the above verb its usual sense and assume that the “‘ bringing forth”’ of the shrine and statue 
of the queen at processions, at the side of the shrine of her husband, is meant, then we must assume that the 
redactor of the decree very awkwardly inserted this remark, which introduces a repetition, into the description 
of the distinctive decoration.) 

° The traces of the sign of the shrine are indistinct; the posterior traces may be all accidental and secondary. 
‘The preceding sign is unusual, bearing a faint resemblance to my “‘like’’ (it is, however, open above) or to the high . 
Originally, probably, it represented the double crown of the queen (here misunderstood, as above, for my?). 

* We wonder at first sight at the great space filled by this restoration. It proves, however, to fit in exactly. 
S(s)p is a sign which allows great extension. Of “dignity,” ’}w/, the preserved determinative as below 14a and — 
Ros. demot. 6 and 7 (later abbreviated). Hrt “‘high(est)’’ also Ros. 5, etc., abbreviated without the feminine -t. 

‘This word also here treated so strangely that no exact transliteration is possible. Cp. above on 12a, etc. 

* We, rather, should expect a compound preposition. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 47 


THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
: 136 
[hpi] nty m—rwt(y) p(?)'—ft nt p-bl | 
[the square? or: frame?] which (is) outside,! the square which (is) at the outside 
[nfrlw-'pn m-—‘g(!)? n(?)| [n-shnt(t)w p—mtée p—shnt(!?) n nb 
these decorations opposite (i.¢.,assupplement?) of | [of the crowns, before thecrown of gold 
I3a P 
| shmtyw(y)—[pn]:3 nt sh(;) hr 
these (twofold) crowns: which is described above, 
H2(?)* h' [rs?] wt het nm rs(y?) | 
A (hieroglyph) ‘“‘clear’’ and [a “south” (crown- | asign ‘‘clear(ness)’’ and a “south’’-sign] 
sign)| 








‘Ros. tries by elaborate ornamentation to distinguish this sign from the ordinary s}: “back, behind.” Still 
better, the demotic version in Ros. shows that rwt “ outside’ is meant. Chabas (‘‘le dessus du support qui est 
derriére(!) ces insignes’’) and others misunderstood it entirely. ‘This mistranslation leads us to the question 
whether we ought not to read: “which is outside (of!) these (7.e., the aforementioned) decorations’’ (thus 
Chabas, etc.). Although this follows closely the Greek (and seemingly, i. e., e silentio, the demotic), I prefer to 
refer ‘‘these decorations” to what follows as introducing the description of the further hieroglyphic symbols 
accompanying the decorative crowns. ‘Thus those two hieroglyphic words correspond to the Greek explanation: 
gvdraxthpia xpvoa [déxa?], not rendered in the demotic text. ‘‘Amulets” dvAaxr#pia, means there not a separate, 
detachable piece of decoration (Ricardi even explained, “‘ bands’’!), but simply the brief inscriptions, the hiero- 
glyphic signs or groups, such as were used for symbols, emblems, mottoes. .This peculiar designation for the 
(mostly flat engraved) hieroglyphic symbols is chosen, not only because such symbols were largely used on 
amulets for persons, but because they served to hallow the cultic object, showing its use and owner, just as a 
Christian church might seem to become sacred by the decoration of the cross surmounting it. That “amulet” 
has this unusual meaning of “religious symbol’’ was not recognized by any commentator of the Greek text, as 
can be seen also from the fact that they all used the restoration: ois (€y)ypadOjcera, “on which will be 
written,’ a restoration which now has become generally accepted. According to the context gained from the 
Egyptian version, I supply, rather, ois onuavOqcerar: “by which will be expressed, signified, indicated.’ The 
hieroglyphic group itself is the “‘amulet,” it does not form part of it. Notice another attempt to make the 
description in hieroglyphics specially precise, with regard to those details, in the expression above, “‘at the upper 
side,’ which aims at the sense: “at the (vertical) side of the top piece, of the frame above,’’ a sense which it 
renders not very successfully, it seems. 

2 Text ‘t, while Ros. omits the g. Both follow the same faulty or indistinct original. We see here that those 
difficult texts were copied much more slavishly by the scribes than we should have thought (p. 5). The prepo- 
sition is not vague in its meaning as an archaizing play for “‘near to.’’ It seems to express a very peculiar 
meaning. (Of course, it never can mean “to the right sidé of,’’ as Chabas proposed to explain this unusual 
archaism.) The corresponding Greek werd xara (7d Bacidevov) seems just as unusual. According to good Greek 
usage it can not mean merely a vague “near to,” which Heyne, Drumann, Letronne, etc., tried to find, evidently 
simply to obtain some sense. I assume that the classical meaning, “‘ corresponding with,”’ has found here the very 
unusual application “in symmetry with,” 7.e., “in a way forming a symmetric group.” ‘This can be inferred from 
the two Egyptian renderings (although I am not at all sure that the demotic p-mté corresponds to the Coptic 
p-emto: ‘front, before’’). Possibly, the Hebrew expression, Genesis 2, forms a parallel. 

5 The curved front ornament of the double crown seems to be visible and traces of the crown itself are plausible; 
then I believe to see distinctly three plural strokes, one over another, and the reed-leaf of ’pnw. The traces 
after the ideogram of the double crown seem to represent the vulture-crown of the queen (p. 46, note 4). 


* The above reading according to the demotic text of Ros.27. After the traces of our text we should guess 
rather: ‘‘a rush stalk,’ 7. e., the emblem of the south. This would, however, be synonymous with 
the rs(y) “south” restored below. ‘The following expression of “‘Southland, Upper Egypt” is clear as 
far as the symbol of the vulture goddess Nekhbet is concerned; the preceding sign admits various guesses. 


® N is not visible, but the article p rather probable. 
6 With strangely written determinative. The serpent-like sign of Ros. 26 is probably é(i), a pleonastic 
repetition of the ¢, and the determinative is lacking. Our scribe seems to attempt the correction of this. 


48 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE ROYAL SHRINE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 


nhbt(?)} kr ib 
(and) a vulture (goddess) on a basket (= “‘lord’’)-sign, 
sm‘ hr-s 
a bush of rushes (= ‘‘south”) underneath 
13d 
hr [qh ?mnty] | kyt-tn 
(are) on [the right side! of] this chapel. 
oe dsrt(?) hr nb 


Anuraeus (and)a “north” (hieroglyph)2on a‘‘lord’’(-sign) 


h} hr-s* 


(with) a papyrus bush (7. e., ‘“‘north’’)-sign underneath 


hr = q‘h-s—ybt(y) 


(are) on its left side. 


Wh'-f pw: 
Its explanation is: 
I3c 


Nobtyy* 


the Master of the vulture and uraeus crowns 


s—hz 


(of Upper and Lower Egypt) who illuminates 


[Sm‘t mhyt| 
[the South and North.] 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 


13b ao 
| hr (?) w*(t?!)° nbé 
on (?) a néb(=lord)-basket-sign. 
I 3c 

Nt(u)—-w hy‘ w‘t(/)® | [F]m'ée 

And be placed a “‘south” sign (7. e., a bush of rushes) 

hr-rt-s_ p(?)'-[p(r)_’mnty(?) n(?) p-gh 
underneath it (on) the (?)® [right of the side 

13d 
e-22 t-git] | [n mb(?)? 
upon the shrine] of gold(?). 
Ni(u)-w [hs w't-'r'yt w*(t?) nb(é) 
And be [placed an uraeus (with) a méb-sign 
I3e 

hr—r]|t-s | hr w' wt(t)(t) 


un]derneath it on a papyrus stalk 


p(r)—ybty 


on the left side, 


 nt-é bf(?)-whm(?)  p,(2)# 
of which its interpretation is: 
r—" ler s-hz 


the king [who has illuminated 


Smt mht.| 
the South (and) North.] 





‘The front ornament of the white crown is visible (perhaps in an unusual form, like the red crown below). 
* The uraeus as symbol of the Delta goddess Buto is clear, but the following symbol of the north, Damanhur 


27; disfigures it to myitt “‘likewise,”’ 


proving that our sign appeared disfigured on its papyrus copy, whether it 


is to be corrected simply to the hieroglyph of the red crown or not. 
* The second half of r and s are visible, ir is preserved in less certain traces. 


* Thus the later Egyptians seem to have expressed this old title, 7. e., 


“the one who has both goddesses,”” 


(evidently with a possessive ending —y after the dualic ie —ty); the original lengthy transcription remains 


unknown. 


* See below (note 10) on the strange feminine indefinite article with this word, although the word itself lacks 


the feminine ending —t (like $m‘é in note 6). 
able —é to $m‘; can this be the “nisbe”’ 


5 Thus after Ros. 


The determinative “ 
° Ros. 27 more correctly the masculine for the strange feminine article; see note 5. 
(i. e., derivative adjectival) ending? 

’ The article p- ought not to stand there, of course. 

Our text seems to differ and to be longer, offering, e. g., the sign X. 


wood,” with nbé “basket sign,” is remarkable. 


Our text adds a remark- 


It looks like: “they 


are ([é|w hpr) lords (nbw, 7. e., here, probably, ‘lord signs’?) ten upon (?) [it?].” 


* Following again Ros. 
changes in the Phile text of the obscure style. 
. . . sd 
'” See note 5 on the feminine indefinite article. 


The traces on the stone are widely different, it seems (like “‘ten crown’’??), indicating 


On the contrary, the word wi(it) below has the masculine 


article, as Ros. 27, but adds the feminine substantive ending —/, lacking correctly in Ros. 


'' Again very uncertain traces which never could be explained without the parallel of Ros. 
”’ and still more p;, pe 


whm (?) is quite in the dark; pef “‘its 


Particularly 


“it is,” are barely possible. 


a i 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 49 


THE SPECIAL FESTIVAL DAYS FOR KING AND QUEEN. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 
eee Sie: A ey NT, 
[Now for (?) the festival days which are mentioned] 


13d 
hr shwy n [ hspt XIX 


on the decree of year 19: 
zr—nty' wn 'bdIV > Smw 
since there was (of) the 12th month (Mesoré), 
[‘rq] hrw n ms(t) ntr nfr 
[the last day], the day of birth (of) the good god, 
[‘nh-2t _ [d]d-(ty?) [m] hb 
the ever|living], fixed as a festival 
13e 
Fw) (2) [leot2 mtr) fr ht 


(of) procession(s) in the temples formerly, 


myti-()ry(w?) n ’bdII 'sht hrw [XVII} 
likewise on the second month, day [17] 
13f 
'r—nf ’rw—nb n 
when he did all things proper for (or: at) 


h‘—n—n-st m ssp 
the royal procession, at the receiving 


14a 
yt (!)f— nw’ n-styt m-—dy(?)® | yt{f\-f 
of his dignity of kingship from his father 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 


Now for the days of festivals which are mentioned on 
13f 

[o-] | wt on hspt? XIX” 

decree® of year 19: 

rll net! Sea ae 

because(?) there was [the 12th month (Mesoré), 

day 30, on which is held the birthday of the king, 

[n] hb 


it ae established] asa festival 

h‘w n(?)? n—rpyw [Ane 
(of) processions in the temples [beforehand: 
ps-smt "bt IT, ’;ht(?) hw X VIT)® 


likewise month 2, day 17] 

13h 

| nt ew 'r n-f(?) noyrw(?) 
when were made tohim _ the rites (of) 

144 

| p-h'[n] PF(2) om Fs)p 
the procession (of) his (?) receiving 

p(?)— © ’;wt-hrt n—tt pf—yi! f~ 7-4 


the high(est) dignity from his father which he made 





* A very awkward literal appropriation from Ros. hierogl. 10. 


like an abandoned blunder. 
_ ? This sign omitted by the engraver. 


> Looked at first like —r my, but read rather as above. 





The traces of the r under zr are feeble, looking 


Has an m been corrected over these groups or vice versa? 


“ Agreeing thus completely with the dating of Ros. hierogl. 10 and Damanhur 28 against the demotic text 


of Ros., which dates 4 months later. 


° We must change the senseless sign ir of the stone as done above (the mw would then treat this word as a 
plural, which it was originally, having collective sense: “the distinctions’), or would we better restore after Ros. 
(Damanhur), m ssp—nf nstyt “when (m as Ros. 9, see note 1 on our line r2c) he received the kingship.” 

° This group crowded into the small space at the end of 13. 

7 We have to recognize, at the beginning of line 14: first the reed leaf (y); behind, there is space left for 


a small sign like the cake ty, which serves, sometimes, as word sign for yt “father.” 


Then four signs: the ¢ small 


and very high; below /, vertical stroke, another —/. ‘The other traces are accidental. 
8 The determinative of the loose papyrus roll preserved or simply the sign corresponding in hieratic to the 


“man with the hand to his mouth? 
® With corrections? ‘The X is not distinct. 
XIX, but the hieroglyphic text is distinct. 


In my plate, the signs may stand too close together. 


showing thus the earlier decree to be quoted. 


We thus might infer a wavering between the dates IX and 


A little intentional gap seems to follow the date, 


Tn Ros. dem. 27 n-t(t) hp(r)—f. ‘The shortening in our text is remarkable. 


2 To be concluded from space. Absent in Ros. 


8 Tt is not possible to harmonize the following difficult traces with certainty with the text of Ros. 28. 

14 Restoring thus after Ros. 28, I assume that the text has been corrected in several places and that the word 
for ‘‘rites, ceremonies,” has a different orthography or an (erroneous?) addition before it. 

© The strange and hazy signs of this phrase give us the impression that at first the different text of Ros. 28 


was copied on papyrus and then changed into the above words lacking in Ros. 


signs seem to stand over erasures. 


Cp. above, p. 46, note 6. The 


50 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE SPECIAL FESTIVAL DAYS FOR KING AND QUEEN—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
hh‘ tp(y) "ht hrw ..'. . . ...| mm (bE) thy — "hi(?)® hw IX(+x?)~ 
and the first month, Cayi il &. teria Sele eee ete orss (mouth) day 9g  (??), 


[ms|wt n hat 
[the birth]! of the queen 


nbt twy Orw’w)p,dryt 


and mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, [the birthday of queen Cleopatra. 
14b . 

(are krete tp m(!)? ig RPM, Fai > t-hyt 

[because (these days were) the beginning of Since these days were] the beginning 
14b 

()hi-nb(t) ’;|hwe? wrw [x] wnlyw] n—mt-nfrw é—r—hpr n rm(t)—nb] { aes: 
all things excellent], numerous ones, for those being | (of) the benefits which came to all men [under 
tb(y)w-rG) n- n-st ‘nh—zt 9 pr ‘nh at Pth [mr] 
under the rule of the king, living forever: the rule ?| of the ike living forever, (by) Ptah [beloved],” 
Perse rts a ke Ssp [p|- ss ms,  p-S(s)p t-’ ;wt-hrt 
[the birthday of the king]* and the receiving (namely:) [the] birth, the receiving (of) the high(est) 


: 14¢c 
ywt- | f(!)—mnkit? br ms{t]® 2 rar * - 
(of) his benevolent dignity and the birth (day) (of) | dignity [and the birthday 


r4d 
| Gllwptré 


[his sister-wife, the princess and mistress of both countries | of queen Cleopatra, 


14d : 
[Orw’pidr|;t hw(w)" []pn ‘rq | XVII nilrt nt pr my(?) ’rw(?) my-hww, 
Cleopatr]a, these days: the last, the 17th the God[dess Epiphanes, may(?) be't made these days, 





1 See below, r4c. ‘True, we find in 13d the singular ms(t) ‘‘birth,’”’ against the plural of the above orthography, 
but such late inscriptions vary in their expressions, in order to show that the learned writer is familiar with the 
orthography of all ages. 

* Erroneously for 7 in Ros., which we follow. 

* So far after Ros. Greek 46, hierogl. ro. In the latter passage the traces of wrw become now intelligible only — 
by our parallel text. 

*’This expression was intended, as we see from the following repetition of the reference to the coronation 
day, but omitted by the present text, through confusion with the preceding reference to the king. The “‘living 
forever’’ would fit better after the mention of the birthday. 

5 Rather thus than ‘jf ‘‘great,” cp. also Ros. hierogl. 11 and above, p. 32, note 3, on the changing epithets of 
this expression. 

° The traces lead to the sign ms in a somewhat awkward form. (No other reading is possible. For the mar- 
riage day as an official yearly festival, analogies are lacking.) 

7 A broad h, perhaps a trace of a small w behind. Below only two of the vertical plural strokes are visible. 
The following abridges Ros. hierogl. 11. 

’’The date looks disfigured, at least in the season sign. We might find a trace of the day number in the 
horizontal stroke running under this group. It is not sufficiently explained as prolongation of ’r—f; it looks like 
IX—at least in the original form prolonged further to the left, where an X or XX might precede it. Such a 
restoration can not be harmonized, however, with the hieroglyphic traces, especially of r4d. 

* The visible traces allow no certain restoration like ’}wt ‘dignity, office.”’ 

The space is, it must be admitted, quite insufficient for mr followed by the article p-; the engraver may 
have omitted some signs here. 

The text of Ros. dem. 28 seems to be corrupted here, where we must expect a wishing form, like Coptic 
mar-u; this is also required according to the hieroglyphic text. I restored it accordingly. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 51 


THE SPECIAL FESTIVAL DAYS FOR KING AND QUEEN—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
14e 
a1 1(?7) [’r-ltw ’bd?-nb [m hb(w?)] ‘rq ee rete ees Th Les Pigs aD 
(and) the 22nd(?),! be held every month [as festival(s?)*] | the last, the r7th and . . . | a festival 


m prw—m;‘t(?) nw Bqt r-;w-sn mltwtw| hr—bt-nb hn n-rpyw n_ t—-Kmy 
in thetemples of Egypt allof them, and [be | every month in thetemples of Egypt 


I4eé 
wh { ‘h(w?) sqr ] wt(?)nw h'‘ tr-w nt(u)[-w ’r gll wine 
setup ovens‘ (and) be poured out]? libations and} altogether and be [made holocaust(s), libation(s) 


14f 14f 
C)hi-nb twt n-r(!)® m hbw- | ’pn | nm p-sp n—mt-| | nt-n(?)-hp ’r-w 
all things proper todo, at these ~~ festivals| and therestof thethings] whichitis proper todo 


th ’bd—nb. n(?) [n]— hb(w?) (hr?)— ’b#}® [-nb?] 
every month. (them) at(?) [the?] festival (s) [every; month. 
"1T—-W m [N-nt é-w’r-w ‘b 
(Which things) are done’ in(!) [The (waysin) which they (have to) bring sacrifice(s) 
148 
r(;)w—’ pn s¥m3 n  s—[nb?]!° nt(u)—w t§ | hr-t(?) n-rm(t)w 
these rules (?)® (they are) prescribed (?) to everybody (?) they be imposed" on the people 


' Proposed because we must expect the larger number to follow the smaller. The last number might have 
this place, however, as being less important, and the signs before the two certain vertical strokes are very difficult. 
The upper trace might be an irregular (rather triangular) ten; the lower trace looks somewhat like an arm, but the 
space for such a sign is insufficient. It might be a narrow ten, the space before it hiding two strokes of XVII. 

2 ‘The determinative below is a sundisk rather than a star, as in Ros. 11, but both readings are possible. 

8 Singular, ‘‘a festival,’ Ros. 11. 

4For burning holocausts (which excluded larger animals). 

° Literally: “struck (i. e., hurled) down.’’ 

° Disfigured in a remarkable way into one sign (like the ‘‘sacred eye’’) by the engraver. See Ros. 11 for the 
correct form. 

7 Or: the better things (to be) done; see below. 

8 Literally : ‘‘chapters, paragraphs.” ‘The meaning “rules, prescriptions”’ is otherwise not known. Cp. above 
the same word in line roa. ‘The preposition m is unusual. 

* The determinative of two feet may be found with some space for a small sign above. Our text enables us to 
understand the obscure group, Ros. 11. Lepsius’s edition (Auswahl 18) gives an absolutely senseless s’w with 
which no later Egyptologist could do anything. Young, Hieroglyphics 28, and Champollion-Figeac, L’ Egyple 
(German ed. ot 1839, pl. 77; after the Déscription?), show the group to be uncertain, perhaps on account of being 
erased and corrected, or engraved tentatively and incompletely. ‘The reproduction in Budge, The Rosetta Stone, 
vol. I, plate 1, likewise shows the ’w very indistinct, as though it had been corrected; through the s runs an oblique 
scratch which could be interpreted as though sim, poorly engraved or abandoned, was intended, provided that the 
scratch is secondary. We see how far all editions of this important text are from being exhaustive. We can now 
restore and explain the very obscurely worded Greek text of the Rosetta stone, line 48-49: 7as re ywouevas (7. ¢., 
mavnyipes) mposbélabai (sic!) rots raplexouévors év Tots iepois. ‘The best Greek scholars have preferred to leave this 
untranslated, others have been misled by the wrong restoration mposé[ces]._ I understand the passage with the 
help of the Egyptian versions thus: ‘‘and that the (newly) celebrated ones (i. ¢., festivals) be imposed as new 
(duty) to them that present themselves (as priests) in the temples.”” The demotic text, Ros. 1. 2 (see above), 
explains the Greek text completely. The hieroglyphic text follows it fairly well according to our new version. 
Whether our redaction contains the original reading or a correction of an unfortunate, unintelligible archaism 
may be decided later. SSm literally, “explained, described.”’ 

S$ after Ros. 11. Perhaps, the nb ‘‘all’’ of Ros. was omitted in our text; it is difficult to find space for it. 

"The word corrected over (with h‘ “‘procession’’?) so that it would hardly be intelligible without the help of 
the parallel texts. 

™ Stone e. 

8 Our text shortens the expressions of Ros. 29. 

4 Literally: ‘commanded, ordered, prescribed.’’ ‘The preposition which follows remains uncertain. 


at) EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE SPECIAL FESTIVAL DAYS FOR KING AND QUEEN—Continued. 


HIEROGLYTHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
5a 2 ; 
m(?) w(n)|nw{t}'—sn 41S on nt Sms (7) nw | rpyw(?)9 
at(?) their hours (of officiating) — in who functionate® (in) their] temples (?) 
I4h 
h{wht—ntr miwiw ’r hb?—-h' n\ a)—w(?). *r hb] 
the temple[s], and be made a processional festival to | and that be(?) made processional [festivals] 
15b , } 15a : 
Mite Lee n—st [’byty] n n-rpyw t—Kmy(?) | [tr-w] hr(?) pr- 
honor? > the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, | in the temples (of) Egypt (?) _ [all] for (?) the king 
ys ie Pitrwwymys ‘nh  2t Ptlwmys mh ot Pth mr 
the son of the Sungod, Ptolemy, living forever, Ptolemy - living forever, beloved of Ptah, 
Pth mr 
beloved of Ptah, 
h‘ — snt-hmt-f nb(t) wy ee os 
and his sister-wife, the mistress of both countries, [and the queen Cleopatra . 
I5c 
QOrw|'wipdri(t), nt[rwy pr(wy) lei ir ie 
Cleopatra, the two Gods_ Epiphanes, the Gods Epiphanes, 
r5b 
tb rnpt S—m Cbd) tlp(y) ht Om. 8. ae 
every year from __ the] first month (Thout), . every year] (from) the first day of the year], 
15d 
hrw I nfryt* | [r h(rw) III(?)® (bt) thy(?) ’sht 5‘ hlw] Ve 
day 1, until [the day 3(?) (the) first month, until (the) [Five Days??] 
ioe eo 
mh(w)| r tb—sn é-wty klme 
crowns} on their head, they wearing crown(s) 
s—[hb] hywy(!)® sqr é-—w ’r [ell wine nm p-s 
putting in festival state the altar(s), pouring out (and) making [holocaust(s), libation(s) and the rest (of) 
I5e 15d 
wdnw h‘ [()hwt]-nb | twiw [n ’rty())]'| mt-nt}-ph(t?) | e(?) 'r-wW 
libations with every[thing] proper [to do}. things] becoming to do (them). 





1A high m (the ‘‘key’’-sign)? The trace, like broad m, behind, is too high and seems secondary; it could be 
understood, however, as the ’y of Ros. 11, so that we should have.to read, like the Rosettana: “who perform 
their hours.’’ At the end of the line is a group which appears to be at a first glance either a high » or an asymmetric 
my: “‘like, as.’ It is, however, more probable that we have the hind part of wv, and of an u, of which latter also 
the first stroke may be visible. No certain trace of the determinative (a star) is visible in r5a, yet the word seems 
to be intended after Ros. 11 (entirely misunderstood and changed to w by Chabas). 

* Hb appears on the stone often like md. 

* The space requires more than ‘for the soul (k;) of’’ which we should like to supply after Ros. 7. 

4’The book-roll would not fill the great space and the ¢ is so unusual that we must suspect an attempt to 
engrave an / under or over it; also the following traces do not fit the necessary restoration after Ros. very well. 

°Thus after Ros. Greek 50. See Philz, II, 16c, on the change of the duration of the festival from five to 
three days. 

° For (y)wt. The side-support in the sign of the sacrificial table is not quite certain. 

7 This strange form after Ros. 12 (for ’y—-tw or ’rt?). 

® Literally: ‘“‘serve.”’ ag 

* The hopeless traces lead to the conjecture that the scribe tried to correct the above erroneous reading of 
Ros. 29. The correct word wnwt ‘“‘hours’’, which must be expected here, can not be read into the text, but the 
initial signs of erpe(y) ‘“‘temple”’ are visible. 

” Thus (after Ros.) on the assumption that the engraver, working mechanically, disfigured various signs; 
e. g., the oblique stroke of Kmy seems never to have been on the stone, nor the usual horizontal stroke above; the 
group looks more like hn “in.” 





THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 53 


THE PRIESTHOOD FOR THE NEW CULT. 








HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
W‘bw' nw prw-—m;‘t(?) m N-w‘bw nt n mn-—rpyw (n) t—-Kmy 
_ The priests of the holy places in The priests who (are) in thetemples of Egypt, 
r5e 
r—prw’-[nb| hr rn—f? Prpyw—nb(?) | nt(u)-w]  2(Z) 
[all] the temples on (i. ¢., bearing) his name [all the temples, be] called 
15f 
k; (w-) | -tw n(?)-sn [hm(w)-nirl’ nirwy | n-w'bw n n-nirw 
(shall) be called prophet(s) (of) the two | the priests of the Gods 
pr(wy) m hriw) +r yvwt-w ‘bw [nt] prw (2!)  e(?)!4—-wih n(?) kw 
Gods Epiphanes in addition to the priestly offices Epiphanes in addition (to) (the?) other 
16a 
n(?)> ‘m|y-sn(!) rn{w] [n—w‘d] 
to which they belong. [priestly] names 
ht(?) —sn sw(?)® hr-th-t}  . . -[s|n | [nt(u)-w sh(G)-f on giy-n-sl' mt—nb 
They (may)engrave(?) it upon’ their [documents?]* | and they shall write it as protocol’ (of) everything, 
ere So yy WN Se, nt(u)—w sh; t;wt (n?) 
[and they (may) write] and they shall write the office of 
16b ; r5f 
Peo, § [y3wt?] wh nm nirwy | w‘d] (1?) n—nirw pr 
[the office of a] priest of the two Gods priest] of the Gods Epiphanes 
159 . oT 
[ prwy | hr ht(m)* di-—sn(?)" | [(e) nw glt(iw)" nt] é-w 
[Epiphanes] on theseal (on) their hands [on their seal-ring(s) which] they 
(r?)-rdt ~ hi-sn ht-(s?) hr—t-w(?) 
causing it™ to be engraved. (have) engraved on them 


(i.e , on which they used to have engraved signs). 














1 The determinative “‘man’”’ evidently to be restored above the plural strokes. 

* Determined by “‘city”’ exactly as in Ros. 12. 

3 Three to four signs here very big and clumsy (as though over erased signs?). 

* Omitted by the engraver, who was confused by the three-fold repetition of the sign for ‘“‘god.”’ 

* The first sign is not high n, rather a vertical stroke, the lowest of the 3 plural strokes of w‘bw. The n 
of the very archaic expression n—sn ’my-s[n] of Ros. 12 seems to have been engraved over ’m (or the expression 
was unintelligible to our redactor, who shortened it erroneously ?). 

* Sw in rather probable traces. The preceding verb is, probably, fii ‘‘to engrave.” What looks like a small w 
may be the hook held by the strong arm. Before it, ) and t. 

’ The senseless #; “‘ground”’ (literally ‘‘on the ground of’), might have crept in by a popular etymology of 
hi-o(0)t- “‘on”’ and by its analogy to /ir-sp; but see the following note. 

* The traces of this word are very uncertain. ‘The first group does not show a bird’s feet; after it a b might be 
found; the following round sign is not the disk with asp, but probably only a secondary hole. The whole com- 
pound reminds of tp—(t;)—rd “ precept(s)’’ as written in the second decree, line 8), and the upper part of the bent 
leg is possible for the third sign, but the lower traces are unfavorable to this reading. Hardly htmw “seals.” 

* Good traces of a high x. 

© The word is abbreviated or mutilated. ‘The determinative “‘seal ring” of the hieratic model copy is dis- 
figured to a crude book roll and a (correcting?) blotch below. Without Ros. 13 it would hardly be possible to 
recognize the word /itm. 

4 The probable ’7(y) ‘belonging to”’ of Ros. 13 is erroneously omitted. Behind, over an erroneously engraved 
bird like “‘eagle”’ or “chicken,” the engraver seems to have tried to put a high m. 

12 St “it”? ought to be read in place of sv ‘‘them,”’ or after it. 

8’The group is written very strangely, perhaps by correction, but the stroke which seems to make here the 
declension of pr is noticeable as quite an unusual detail. 

4 Read e (in place of nt) —w,h ‘‘to add,” which is better than the seeming n—w,h ‘“‘in addition” of Ros. 30. 

4 The word is engraved in an indistinct way, which suggests that the engraver at first did not recognize its 
meaning and had to make corrections. 

'6 The word, corresponding with Greek ypnuariouds, Ros. Gr. 51, Canop. Gr. 22 =dem. 24, means ‘‘ documents, 
documentary expressions, legal titles of a person in writing.” 

1” The word, see Griffith, Rylands Pap., III, 237, 400. Ros. Greek 51 has generally been restored: kai eis rovs 
a[AAous .. .] (see Strack, Dynastie der Ptolemaer, 244, etc.); could it not be possible to restore d[axruAtous], if the last 
letter before the break is not quite certain and might be 6 instead of a? 


54 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


PRIVATE CULTS OF THE ROYAL COUPLE. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
16¢e rsh 
’sk | ’[rfy?}} wnn—-s m-—dy [Nt(u)—w t(y)—hpr’] | °s(?)  ‘(?)®-(n)?-tt 
Also thus it be permitted? And (it) be made] also (?)® at the disposal 
16a 
[wnnyw ntyl-sn ’b(y)—-sn n-rm(t)w  p-ms‘(?)*° | nt é-w(?) —whj—w 

(to) people who? wish (of) the men (of) the people who are wishing 

16d : 
s-| ‘hé— mytt(!) k3t-tn n [¢t(y) Fh‘ ()™ b(!)-smt — t-g3t[-nb] 
to set up likewise this shrine of to bring out in procession(!) likewise the [golden] shrine’? 

16b 

ntrwy pr(wy). r-[rdt] wnn[-slt m n—nirw nt(?) [pr | nt hr 

the two Gods Epiphanes to let (it) be in (of) the Gods [Epiphanes], which (is described) above, 
16e 

pr-sn mitwtw(!)?? | -sn ’r e(?) t(y)—-hpr(-s?) nw—m,w nt(uj)-w ’r 

their house, and they shall make (to) let it be (at) their places, they shall make’ 
hb\w —n'— h‘—pn tp bd n—hbw n—h‘w nt sh; 
these processional [festivalls every month the festivals (of) the(!) processions which are described 
[-2 tp] rnpt. hr hr-rnpt. 

[(and) every] year. above, every year. 


‘The strange archaizing pleonasm of Ros. 13, ’s—’ry—f-sw, was unintelligible to our redactor; he first omitted 
the sw, not recognizing that it stood for swt and expressed a contrast: ‘“‘but, moreover, however.” Replacing the 
’s by the fuller ’sk, the redactor shows that the whole series of adverbial (demonstrative) particles was a meaning- 
less stylistic ornament to him. (I am not sure whether the two very low and deep oblique scratches below the 
secondary vertical line division express a final y; the other traces are difficult.) 

2 Literally, ‘‘on, at, hands.”’ Ros. 13 reads m—‘wy, which I consider merely as an artificial archaism, without 
historical foundation. We might find traces of this ending —wy also here. 

3 The redactor shows that the affixing of the personal pronoun —sv to the relative (?) uty, Ros. 13, looked very 
strange to him. He wishes to-move the suffix sw to its regular place behind the verb ’b(y), but has not the courage 
to remove that interesting form nty—sn entirely, so he leaves it at the side of his correction. 

4The engraver omitted the s (see Ros. 13); whether he made a feeble attempt to scratch it over the m or 
erased it in favor of the m is uncertain. 

° Confused orthography in Ros. 13, after which we restore here as though the third plural and the passive 
endings were united by pleonasm. 

° This added in our text (disfigured to m?). Cp. the demotic version. 

7’The small space suggests omissions. 

* This does not seem to be es: ‘‘she is=it is’; this would hardly be possible grammatically. We are tempted 
to find pr in this ligature; the space would then, however, be too small. It is in any case insufficient; see above. 
Our redaction, certainly, omits the ‘n “‘again’’ of Ros. 31 as superfluous. 

* Literally, ‘‘(at) the place of the hand.”’ ‘The first ligature is engraved quite senselessly and does not seem to 
have been understood by the sculptor. Cp. the parallel, Ros. dem. 31. 

” Literally, “of the multitude.” Egyptian lacks a good expression for the Greek “private people,’’ as we 
see especially in the hieroglyphic version. 

FT‘ “to show, to parade” seems in Ros. and here to be written erroneously for )3‘ “to place, to set up.” 
The other versions demand this emendation. 

2 Evidently omitted in Ros. 31 by confusion of mb with the following plural article. Before might be read 
nt whi-w “and they wish,” which, however, could be read as in Ros. (u)—w. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 55 


PUBLICATION OF THE DECREE. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
16f 
R(?) = rdt__s(’),;w(/)— | tw wnn Nt(u)-f— hpr  ’s swn (ft) n—nt 
In order tolet it be known (that) there are the | And that it be also (?)® known that those who 
’m(y)w T;—Mrit) (n) t—-Kmy] 


inhabitants of the Inundation Country (i.e., Egypt) | (are) in Egypt] 


Fray | mye inl | | tebe)” wontrw ni [pr 


honoring thetwo Gods Epiphanes according to that honor the Gods [Epiphanes 
which is 

r Pswy?] nfr spi(?)* . e(?)—- h p-nt-n—-hp n ‘rf 
for [compensation] (of)good(ness) of action (?) according to that whichis proper to do (it) 
hiw(?)’-tw shwy-pn hr ‘h‘[y] nlty nt(u)—w sh(;) p-wt n wyt 
be engraved this decree on stela(e) off be written the decree on_ stela(e) (of) 

I7b 
4: ( -rd(t) m \ sh; [x] mdw(t)—nir(w) ‘ny-sry Nn sh(;) mt—ntr 
hard stone in the writing of the divine words, | hardstone in (the) script (of) divine word(s), 

16e 

sh; nS yw! er shs n shG)-S¢ , shG) || Wynn 

the writing of letters (and) the writing of letter script, (the) script] (of the) Ionians (7. e., Greeks) 
I7¢ 

Hyw(y)-nbw" | rd(t?)—‘h-f m= [prw-m;‘t(?) 

the Greeks, setting it up* in [the holy places 
m r—-prw-nb hr rn|—f [ni(u)—w t(y)-] ‘h-(f)" n n-rpyw 
in all temples on (7. e., bearing)] his [name,] and that (it) be set up in the temples 


17d 16f 
mh-I, mh-II, mh-III i r-gs_ hn(ty)| I(=tpy), n(?) | [n-rpyw mh-IT 
(of) first, second (and) third (order) beside the statue | (of) first (rank), in the temples (of) second (order) 


1 The ideogram of the verbal root “‘to know” (Pan’s flute) disfigured to 1. 

2In Ros. ’m slightly disfigured? 

3 Like a high n, but the lower part as far as visible would be too low for this, so I rather read my, but the sign 
is not quite clear. ‘The Demotic version supports this reading my “‘like.”’ 

4J do not understand the above expression in detail, owing to the difficulty in identifying the sign after r. 
The above reading must assume that the ’s-sign was disfigured somewhat; fw ‘‘ proper thing”’ can hardly be found 
there. Above, I suggest, after the apparent ufr, an emendation of spt to sp, “‘time, case, example, action,”’ 7. e., 
of ¢ to a circle (with two strokes inside). So far this is very uncertain, although the general sense is plain by the 
Greek (53) and demotic (31-32) versions of Ros., after which we should expect fwt ‘‘proper.’’ Is it possible that 
the passage was disfigured so strongly by the engraver? Or read simply nfrw-st(!) ‘‘their('!) goodness”? 

* Expressed by an arm holding a stylus? The traces are strange (more like a foot?) and the w as third 
consonant of this verb is quite unusual, so that we must again suspect corruptions (like confusion with mlwtw). 

° Written ‘‘yw by mistake. 

7 The true pronunciation of this very ancient name does not seem to be known yet; I use above the popular 
transliteration. | 

8 Or particularly, ‘being set up.” ‘The -t of rdt is, probably, without signification. 

*See above, p. 54, note 8, on this ’s. Here it is even clearer that it can not be verbal. 

10 Notice well the final -i(7) of our text, also with the above verbal form. 

1 The Philz text omits the —f of the subject, probably having a mere oblique dash which could be confounded 
with the following smaller stroke, a negligent m (like e). Also the verb ‘ohe‘ is negligently written as though 
not understood. We correct after the general parallel (Ros. dem. 32), disregarding the two vertical strokes 
which stand there after ¢(y). 


56 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


PUBLICATION OF THE DECREE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 
nN n—Sst ’byty 
of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, 
nb twy S} fee 
the lord of both countries, the son of the Sungod, 


77eé 
nb h‘w Piw;rw[mys | ‘nk 2t, 
the lord of diadems, Ptole|my, living forever, 
mr Pth h*] rpyt hat 
beloved of Ptah, and'] theimage of the queen, 
wrt nb(t) wy 
the great one, the mistress of both countries, 
gd) 
Orw’ | w,p,dr;(t) nirwy pr(wy) , dy ‘nh, 
Cleopatra, the two Gods Epiphanes, giving life, 
nbw snyb—nbw(!) my R' at 
lords of all health like the Sungod eternaily. 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 


n—rpyw mh-III Me 
(and) the temples (of) third (order) before 
p-iwt n pr- 
the statue of king 
Pillwml|y|s ‘nh [st Pth mr 
Pto|lemy, living [forever, beloved of Ptah, 
nm t-rpyt n_ pr't] 


and theimage of queen] 


16g 16h 
| Gllwpet[ré | [n-]ntrw 


nt pr 
Cleopatra, [the] Gods Epiphanes; 
16% 
nt(u)w n—nb|w [‘nh 5 ‘]zt(?) 
they  [are(?) the master]s(?) (of) life for ever 
nm(?) hh(?)? 
and(?) eternity(?) 


1 The space would allow fuller expressions for this word. 


2 Evidently the same preposition which we have discussed in the note on rog (p. 41). 


Notice in Ros., which 


we have followed in our passage, the treatment of the final —f(e) as if it were # “hand.” F 
’’The conclusion can not be read with entire certainty. It is terminated by a few groups a line below, plate 
g (19), not returning to the regular beginning of the lines. 


5 
‘ 
; 
| 
4 





THE SECOND DECREE. 


The so-called ‘“‘second”’ (in reality first) decree! stands to the left of the decree treated so 
far, with only 2 to 3 inches space between. ‘The hieroglyphic hand is very similar to that 
of the “‘first’’ decree and may be identical, although considerably more elegant; evidently, the 
engraver took more time in the first half of his work, so that we have here a further proof 
that the sequence of both documents is to be reversed. The demotic text begins a little 
over 4 inches under the last hieroglyphic line. Its writing, at first elegant, firm, and intelligent, 
becomes heavy on plate e, and on plate f as clumsy as if the signs had been recut for correc- 
tion. I do not hazard an explanation of these latter changes. 


THE DATE. 
DEMOTIC TEXT OF THE SECOND DECREE. 
[Hspi XIX, \plls XXIX(?) 
[Year 109, Apellaios ?| 29(?) 
nt iY bt =n) ormtw t—Kmy 


which makes (as) month of Egyptian people 


IV(?)—Smw, hw IX, 
Mesoré (12th month), day  9,? 


rb 
| pr-' p-lh\i 
(THE HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT OF THE SECoND| 0!) the king, the young one, 


DECREE IS DESTROYED FOR THE FIRST rh pr n Pst [nm pf-yit(2) 
THREE LINES). who has appeared (as) king at the place [of his father 


nb n—‘r'y(w)t, nté n—()] | tf-pht(c)-t 
lord (of) the diadems who great is] his might, 


Id 
'y-smn t—Kmy [ef] t(y)- | nfr-f 
who has established Egypt, (as) [he has] improved it, 


[ut 2;—-| mnh Pe et a ke cad 
[who] kind (is) [his heart towards the gods, who . 








his enemies (while) he improves the life of (the) men, 








1 See p. 3, on the error in this conventional name and the demotic text on the exact date. 

*’The date is not clearly readable. Neither the signs for the season nor the preceding number are plain. 
The traces at the latter place look like a II, and thus my first reading was: second month of the second season, 
a. e., Mechir (sixth month). This would have brought us into the middle of the twentieth year, a time when order 
would have been restored sufficiently throughout all Egypt and the priests would have had time to come from 
every corner of the country. But the ‘‘first,” in reality second, decree mentions “‘the decree of the year 19” 
(at least, line 13d, demotic 13f) and thus fixes our date, for it is not advisable to assume that “‘year 19’’ would refer 
only to the victories over the rebels, not to the following priestly convention and its resolution. It is also much 
more probable that the priests of Egypt did not wait for half a year to show their loyalty on such an important 
occasion. Evidently they acted wisely and promptly, assembling as many priests from the Delta towns as was 
possible within six days, to speak in the name of all the rest. Thus I have tried to read the third season and to 
find traces of the month No. IV above that faint deceptive trace, considering this trace (which resembles a II) as 
secondary. ‘The number 9g for the day is fairly clear, less the 20. I leave it to others to control the correspondence 
of the Macedonian date. | 

* On the stone by mistake #/, evidently by confusion with the following possessive pf “‘his.”’ 


*T do not repeat the transliterations for these long restorations. See the first decree for them. 
De 


58 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE SECOND DECREE—Continued. 
THE DATE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 


(THE HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT OF THE SECOND 
DECREE IS DESTROYED FOR THE FIRST 
THREE LINES.) 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 
if 


| hbst(?) [m qty J | 
the lord of the years of] jubilee, [in the likeness of] 
Pth tn pr—-' m qty 
Ptah, the exalted one,! the king in the liken[ess 


Ig 
p-R'] (p—?) | pr- n—tsw nt 
of the Sungod], the king of the territories which 
hr [n—tsw nt hr 
(are) above (and) [the territories which (are) below, 
th 
p-lFry 


[n n—|ntrw mr yt(2)w 
the] son 


[of the] Gods Loving (their) Parents, 
e stb Pth [el ty nf p-R‘ 
whom chose Ptah, to whom has given the Sungod 
| [p-2er(3) p-t(w)t|-‘nh "mn 
[the victory, the] living [image] (of) Amon, 


2b 
p-Sry p-R‘ Ptlwmys | 
the son (of) the Sungod, Ptolemy, living forever, 


Pth mr p-ntr nt pr [s}] Ptlwmy|s 
beloved of Ptah, the god Epiphanes, [the son of] Ptolemy 


‘nh zt 


2c 
nm... n-ntrw mr] | yt(t)w 
[and Arsinoé, the Gods Loving] (their) Parents. 
Wb Algsntrws [nm 
Priest (of) Alexander [and 
n—ntrw t |nhm 
the Gods who] Save(d) 
2d 
|nm n-[nirw snw |, n-ntrw nt mnh 
and the {Gods Fraternal], the Gods Benefactors, 


[n—ntrw mr—yt(i)w? : n— nirw nt pr . 
[the Gods Parent-loving, the Gods Epiphanes, (being) 


eS eee eee » siege a 
N. N., the son of N. N.; (being) N.N., 
2f 
pee [P]twlm|ys] y 
the daughter of Ptolemy(?), bearer (of the) 


28 
Spe qn 
prize of victory [of Berenike, the Beneficent; (being) 


jiws fy tn 
Demetria, the daughter ‘of Philin|os, basket bearer 





1 See the first decree on the double sense of this word. Probably, it means here “the ancient one.’ 
- T he traces on 2¢ belong to the priestly name rather than to this title, although strongly reminiscent of the 


group “‘father.”’ 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 59 


THE SECOND DECREE—Continued. 
THE DATE—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. 


H\ryn; yt n 


DEMOTIC TEXT. 
3a 


[before Arsinoé, the one Loving her Brother; (being) 


w‘b 
priest (ess) 


Pilwmys 


Eijrene, the daughter of Ptolemy, 


3b 


| Glrs[y] t-mr(t)— yt(i)-s. 


of Arsinoé, the one Loving her Father. 


THESRELIGIOUS OCCASION, OF “THE” DECREE. 


4a 
| zm;wt(?)—nir  h' ty(/) 
the holy writings and _ the faculty 


[shsw] 
(the scribes of) 


pr(wy)— | 
of the (double) house of life (7.e., the library) 


‘ 


w‘bw 
priests 


h' n;—kyw 
and the other 
m ’trty sm ‘t 
- from the (two classes of) sanctuaries of the South 
b 
pi-sbdy sn 


“the Fortress of 


mhyt nty m | 
(and) North who (are) in 


'r(w)ksdrs 


Alexander”’ (Alexandria) (who) have met 


4c 
shat nty ’st | h' nirwy snwy 
the sanctuary of Isis 


and the two Brotherly Gods 


’ 


‘b-sn W 
at! ; 


h‘ ntrwy mnhwy h‘ 
and thetwo Beneficent Gods and 
nirwy mr(wy) yiwy hr 
the two Gods Loving the(ir) Parents and 
nirwy pr (wy) nbw Bat 
the two Gods Epiphanes, the “Lords of Egypt,” 


1 Literally: ‘‘towards, into.” 


Wt Y n—|mr(?)—‘nw 
Decree (which) have passed? the [high priests 
3c 
nm n-hnwntr nm n-| | w'bw nt 
and the prophets and_ thel$ priests who 
5(m) e (p-?) m'‘wb e r 
go to (the) sanctuary to perform 
— mnh [xn n—nirw 
the clothing [of the gods, 
3d 
nm n-sh(;)w|] mzyw | nm n-sh(3)w 
and thescribes of] books* and __ the scribes 
r(wy?)— ‘nh 


(of) the (double) house of life (i. e., the library) 


nm n—- kw wbw 
and the other priests 


[who have come from the temples of 


Egypt (to Alexandria?) 
3e 


the Gods 
af 
a) a | eee 
Euergetes [and the Gods 
nt pr 
Epiphanes, 


to the temple of Isis and 
Philadelphus and the Gods] 
[um n—|ntrw 
[and the] Gods 


Bdlét] . 
(of) Egypt 


[m]r— yt(a)w 
Philo]pator 


nbw 
the Lords 


2 No space for the usual words summing up the long date “this day,’’ which we should expect before “decree.”’ 
3 Very abundant space, suggesting some unusual orthography or additions (?). 
4 Strange orthography of this word (the pronunciation of which is not quite certain). 


60 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE POLITICAL OCCASION OF THE DECREE: 
SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 


d 
it sm’ w-sn i n hm-f 


When it was announced to His Majesty 


m ; mh-b' = nw(!) hm-f 
through the mouth ofa Friend of His Majesty 


mr n—st hr hrp nfrw 
who loves the king, concerning the commander of horse, 


"'r(w)sdi|nyws p} 'r(w)sdinygws 
Aristonios, the (son) of Aristonikos, 
4af 
m_ strt?g}(?)m(y)nws | nty 


as commander in chief (ortparnyotpevos) who (is) 


‘mut - ’m(yw)-’b th(yw) nw 


among the First Friends of 
hm-f m 2d: Pereete a a 
His Majesty saying: [who had raised rebellion ?] 


5a h 
Ww-sn(!)s m | b rs(y)t | [hr—?| t(a)-[f? bn?] Igf(?) . 
(there) was fought in the land of the South, upon (7.¢., against?) [him?];’ [not] did he stop 
[committing sins 
m ww n W;st - + 8 ew ee 
in the Territory of Thebes,‘ against the gods(?). He had gathered] 


h' sbC)w, hft(y) nirw [hr?-] 3[¢(c)? —f?] . . . n- [rm(é)w?] 


with the impious man, the enemy of the ‘gods, against(?)  [him?] [from] the [men] | 


wn hr(2)* tele] Tb?) wf sa han ae 
(who) had been assembling from(?) the warriors(?) (of the warriors(?) [for] 


1 tml n[w?|- [ms‘?]w |[Smw_ITI . . 


war, hlis?] [soldier?]s month [XI .. + 


1 Literally: ‘‘who filled the heart of H. M.”’ ‘The following synonymous expression shows that the Greek 
original must have designated him as a “Special Friend ”’ 

2 The rare sign in the value of rt; in later time ordinarily used for ry. The following g is very small, almost 
like n(w), for which it could be held. The next sign might also be w. 7 

3 The sign s is left incomplete. 

4 An awkward translation for ‘“‘the Thebais.”’ es 

6 The questionable /r— traces might be secondary in part. The group before may have an m below; the sign 
above seems to be a very narrow wm; at least the peculiarly forked tail, which our two inscriptions give to this sign, 
seems clearly visible. Wn expresses a continual past action. It is neither the enemy striking himself nor do the © 
readings nly or hpr of the whole group appear possible. The reading hwi nir(w) * ‘the temples” (taking the second — 
vertical stroke as part of the temple sign), is equally impossible. 

* The orthography of hn ( instead of the exact m-—hn ‘from among ”’) is unusual and uncertain. ‘The unique 
word wif (see again 9b, rif ), written here with the determinative ' “digegeaes man,”’ shows that it was used as synon- | 
ymous with “rebels.” 

7 Not quite certain, but the sense is clear. 

§ Abbreviation or mutilation of the expression Ros. demot. 11? 

* The group looks like a date, though this does not correspond with the hieroglyphs. This must be said also 
of the preceding words and of the whole passage, which makes us think of additions in the demotic text. 





| 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 61 
SUPPRESSION OF THE REBELLION—continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
; ie 
h* isw' nw hspt X|IX [nm] | [n-...]Jw n n- 
and troops. of year jg, [and] [the troop?] of the 
Nhs(y)w dmz—sn h‘-f ’ of 'v-twt nm-f. 
the Ethiopians who had united with him, Ethiopians having gathered with him. 
se ~ 4d 
| sm—’m(?)-sn jim m sq i-f-s|m)>. n—m-w , elf tiy)-—h' | 
slaying them, seizing as captive He sl[ew them, hile arrested’ 
nt [‘nh]. p—-s3b rn—f é-f-‘nh. 
this (wicked man) [alive]. the impious man mentioned (before), being alive. 


THE BENEFITS BY THE KING TO THE GODS IN GENERAL. 





5d cc 
Kj-sn: m(y)—nty | wnni E-w 2(t): n-t(t) 
They declare: inasmuch as there was They say: since 
n—st byty 4c, Wy a a eS 
the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, |the king Ptolemy, living forever, 
sR‘ Ptw;rwmys 
the son of the Sun, Ptolemy, 
[‘nh. Bho ks me Pip! 4 ev te 
[living forever, beloved of Ptah], beloved of Ptah, 
a. (0 n—st ’byty (OP ST a I tes, 
the son of the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the son of king Ptolemy and of] 
5e 4e 4f 
Piw;rwmys hn‘ | hat nbt BRT ALM ce Bye AL | lg Oe ri ie 
Ptolemy, and the quéen (and) mistress queen Arsinoe, [the Gods Philopator, and] 
49 
wy r(w)synyt nirwy if-shmt pr‘t | Glw[péré, 
of both countries, Arsinoé, the two Gods his wife, the queen Cleopatra, 


mr (wy) ytwy h‘  snt-hmt-f hat Seng Tyna) O89 8 
Loving the(ir) Parents, and his sister-wife, the queen | [the Gods Epiphanes] 


5f 
nbt tywy QOrw;’p; | drst 


and mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, 











* The ¢ is not quite plain. The sign fs (Theinhardt’s catalogue Q 54) as a vocal determinative occurs below 


_11¢. ‘The word s(t) means usually “‘troops;”’ it seems to have an unusual sense here, and is not absolutely certain. 


The usual words for ‘‘tribe’’ are impossible. In demotic only the determinative “‘foreign’’ is preserved (migt;?). 

2 Participial construction without suffixal possessive. Determinatives ‘knife’? and “arm” (destroyed). 
The expression of the object by m has, by no means, partitive sense (as though meaning: “‘(some) of them’’) 
(see on this interesting influence of the vernacular grammar, demotic text, line ga). 

’’The orthography is not entirely clear and is certainly unusual. (Second determinative “club.’’) The 
word }m before it is written with eagle and horizontal m in ligature, as 16a. 

4 Pn “this”’ is rare in this absolute use (like the more frequent p/; ‘“‘that one,’’ with contemptuous sense) ; 
the demotic version insures the general sense, however. We might also assume that the repetition of the determi- 


native ‘bound captive’’ has caused the omission of the word sd’(w) ‘impious man.” 


> The nn like-m, but the error possibly abandoned. On ww of the imperfect, cp. p. 60, note 5. 

6 S§ seems to be visible; the m}-sign seems to have been as straight and as far to the left as in Ros. demot. 16, 
where this rare, obsolete word, mutilated gd, occurs. ‘The verb may also be treated as participial, “‘slaying.” 
_ ~.1 Exactly the same double sense as with the English word “‘to arrest.’’ Coptic ¢aho has the same meanings. 


62 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE BENEFITS BY THE KING TO THE GODS IN GENERAL—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 


ntrwy pbr(wy) hr-r C)h(w)tnb' nfrw 
the two gods Epiphanes, doing all things good 


6a 4h 
n hwt-nir? h‘ 'mity(/)*-sn [n-|'rplyw nm n-] | nt hn-w. 
to the temples and_ their inmates [the] tem[ples and_ those] who (are) in them 
h‘ wn (yw) m—hnt(!) 

together with (those) being within 

yiwi-sn = mnht r—}w—sn 
their beneficent dignity (or office) all together, 

5a 
r' ‘b-sn = =omnh-— hr ntrw mh | [éwl]-mh(?) [nw]  htpw(ntr?) | [7] 


being their heart kind towards the “gods, filling | [they] filled(?) [their?] (sacred) income [showing] 
6b 


htpw(?) —sn | sk rws'(?) nb(?) e ty(?) ['n]b(?) 
their sacrifices’ (7. ¢., incomes?) furthermore® care(?)  all(?) to give(?) life(?) 
5b 

’w  tr(t)—nb [xn n-?| phty(?) 
at all time’ [to the?] right(s)(?) of Elgypt?] 

r—sbwt st|s]w(?)* nw Bat {-Kmly](?) nt(u)—-w  ’r(?) 
forthe sakeof  theinstitutions(?) of Egypt Egypt(?) and they did(?) 

6c 

"W—-;W-SN h‘ [hipw]-ntr° 
altogether, together with the divine [domains?]. 
[’w?|—sn rdt mn kj-sn_ [’b?}?° 


They gave (7. e., made) (this) firm (as) they thought (?) 





* Nb seems to be corrected over three plural strokes. 

* N as simple stroke; of the divine hawk, whip and tail are visible. 

3 Incorrectly in place of ’my(w), the —y being disfigured to ty. This is then abbreviated to one sign. The 
analogy of ’mwt “within” (4f; 9b, etc.) may be considered, likewise. 

* Might be, also, a small low m or an irregular m (‘‘in their heart’’), but r(=’w “‘being’’) is most probable. 

5 We should expect: ‘“‘filling their hearts, their wish,’’ (7. e., satisfying them), but the traces are unfavorable, 
as also they are against a restoration like: “their storehouses, their magazines.’’ ‘The horizontal traces above 
are somewhat high for htp(w) “‘sacrifices,’ but the ¢ and irregular p below show that this word is meant. 
(The cake and the plural strokes have been effaced behind.) 

° See below, demot. 5d, the translation of this archaistic expression with ‘on “again.”’ 

7 Thus, rather than rnpt “year,’’ which the orthography would indicate. With ¢# the final -t is senseless, 
but may be taken erroneously from the foot of tv, ?’. 

*I tried, at first, the reading sudw ‘‘the respectful (people or subjects),”’ literally ‘‘those who fear,” which 
seemed to me an awkward translation for some Greek expression like e’Aafeis, ‘the careful, considerate, prudent.” 
The reading is, however, too uncertain, and the last two determinatives would be quite unusual. ‘Therefore, I 
have preferred the restoration s/[s?](w), as meaning ‘institutions, traditions’”’ or the like. It must be admitted 
that with the above reading the two signs following the determinative of ‘saying, thinking’’ remain inexplicable; 
these, furthermore, look as if preceded by a small gap above. Nevertheless, the following “all of them’’ shows 
that a noun in the plural is meant. ‘Thus we can not read: “for the sake of restoring order,” or similarly with 
an infinitive. ‘To change the redundant last two determinatives to gnw ‘“‘many”’ does not yield any better sense. 

* The signs look like ntrwt ‘‘goddesses,’’ but this is senseless. “Evidently the text is corrupted. The guess 
given above (hipw ntr ‘divine domains,” with the goddess sign for that of the broad cake, cf. 6d, etc.) presents 
only the difficulty that these domains are mentioned in the next section. 

The traces fit neither this restoration nor very well mn “‘these,’’ which we should like to see after the demotic. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 63 


THE BENEFITS BY THE KING TO THE GODS IN GENERAL—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
6d 5c 
oe? tb—nfr n-wnyw nw| Bat L. My n n—r—W p-hp 
to do the very best(?)! to the people of Egypt, these (things) to those who do (?)" what is right 
: 5d 
my ‘r-n Dhwty betes: hn . . [e-h] p-é&’r Thuty | p-5 p-5 
as did Thout, [the very great]. in [Egypt(?)] as did ‘Thout the very great 


Sreclals BENEFITS ‘TO? THEIPRIESTS. 


W[z-hm--f?]? "sR ’w—sbwt Hn-f-s ‘n  e-th(st) n-htpw (—ntr?) 
Ord[ered(?) his majesty(?)] furthermore on behalf | He ordered it again on behalf of the sacred domains 


6e 5e 
htpw [-ntr?] n nirw | h' nb n n-nirw | [nm n-—nb n—pr 
of the [sacred?] domains of thegods and the gold, | of the gods; [and the money (and) the grain 
hz hy ridy?]_ r  hwt-ntrw nt é-w-ty-st n snigsy(s?) (e) nw- (rpyw) 
silver (and) grain (to be) given for the temples which was given as tax for their (temples) 
m(!)—-hr? hspt h‘ p(s) Swt(?) rwt | hr-rnpt nm — n-tyw. nt hpr n 
every year (of the king) and the corresponding(?) shares | every year and the portions which were for 
5 
nw [?!nir]w m hsp nw(?)® hw(t)’ | n—nirlw nn—yhw(t)li [n-]! yhw(t) ae 
of the |[god]s from the vineyards(?)® of the fields(?) | the god]s from the vineyards (and) the gardens- 
hr hnbw [... ?] ()hA(w)tnbd nm p-sp [nkt tr-w 
and gardens, [and?] all things and the rest [(of the) things altogether 
74 
wn hr|-sn e—w|n—n,é-w(?)  mhlt|(?)—u(?) ’m—w'? 
(which) were (due) to(?) them’ which] they had been __ receiving(?) 
m rk yt?(—f] [mn—sn] r(?) PRESS he 
in the time [of his] father [should remain] at(?) [under his father 





1 Literally, ‘the top (7. e., beginning, or the best) of the good.” 

2 The —w seems to be the phonetic complement following the sign w2, wi. 

3’ With a remarkable m. So far we have an exact repetition of Ros. Greek 14-15, ras d:dopuevas els abta Kar’ 
éviauTov ovvTakers oiTiKas TE Kal apyupLKas. 

4 For ’ry(w), 7. e., ‘belonging to them, due, proper” (kanxoicas). Reading rjw ‘‘parts’’ would be tautology. 

5 We must follow Ros. Greek 15, andthe demotic. Our scribe has exchanged agricultural words as meaningless 
for him. Damanhur, 14-15, suggests that the obscure passage was confusing even in the original. (Cp. Brugsch, 
W orterbuch, 968, boldly restored.) ‘The effaced group after hnbw seems disfigured for i‘ “and.” 

® Not the middle stroke of the plural strokes above; it is too high. Neither is hr “‘on, and”’ probable. 

7 The abbreviation i= y;ht is very archaic, like the (threefold) omission of the plural strokes. 

§ Thus, reading the last sign on line 6 as the determinative “‘book-roll.”” Hr [h}i|-sn ‘‘before them” seems 
not possible. 

® With an abnormally large determinative ‘‘way”’’ the limits of which are not clear. 

” Grammatically doubtful. Could it not rather be read e-t(y) ’r-w “to make them do, to cause to be done’? 
The dot after the ambiguous sign, however, seems to point to the reading n/(})-, not ty. 

1! The plural article »— seems to have been omitted by homoioteleuton with the first sign of the group yh, 
y,ht. See the Rosetta parallel. 

2 So far simply after Ros. dem. 9, with which the traces in our text do not all agree. The wa—mn}é—w can be found 
most easily, but the mh requires fancy. Mh(t)—n usually means “‘to seize, to grasp.’ The reading “(they were) 
owing” r—w would have a sign too much and would present other difficulties. The reading st “to demand’’ 
likewise remains uncertain. Is our text corrupted? Next we might try to see also m n— “‘in the [temples?’’]. 


64 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


SPECIAL BENEFITS TO THE PRIESTS—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
[st(—sn?)]} w,h(?)—sn? erg(?)? 
[their place] (and) be added(?) foundation(s?) (of) 
7b sh 
sh(w)t-[sn]* | ’w(?) gs—sn(?)? fee ke ret pw 
[their] fields to their part. [for the] temples(?). 
’w—[dy-f?] nb he “(wt nb n— mi't E-whf nb [hal 
He [gave?] gold, silver, all genuine stones He added gold, silver, 
6a 
my—‘S—sn w s—h' ‘my | [n—m;‘(t) 
in great quantity, for the decoration of stone(s) [of value for the decoration of] 
7e . 
| [Pé]h wn(??) ntr—nb(?)? nw-'rp[yw](?) yy) (2) ‘ata 
Ptah(’s temple),° (and what) there was (for) any god(?) | their(?) temples(??) going(?) [to ruin? he was?] 
m ws m hmw ’w-[f?]-rdt wn-sn| ty(?) . . ‘ 
in ruin in thesanctuaries [he?] causedthem tobe | giving(?) (i.e., causing?) then to ie repaired] 
hr st-sn 


on their place (i. e., in the former, good state). 


7d 6b 
| ’r-nf ‘“ihw(i)—wrw . ... [Jw. ...) | [r-f mi-nfrt Sy] Hp,° Wr-mr(!) 

He did great benefits [many?] to [the Apis] [he did benefits many] (to) Apis, Mnevis 
h‘ Nb(?)-nm(?)wy® Swylwl|?  ntr(yw) [um n—-k’’w a4 nt hwy (n) 
and the Mnevis (and) the — sacred animals | [and the other animals which (are) venerated in 

7e 6c 

hw |n [Km]t m-hiw- 4 wn |t-Kmy hw, nyy(?)-]| | wn—nj—w hit) 
venerated in Egypt more than (those who) were | Egypt more than those who] were before him 
hr-h,t-f. sae naling ‘r(-w?) [el 


before him. His heart entered (7. e., was willing to serve) : had done, [being] 





' The passage can not be filled after Damanhur 15, because the text has been considerably varied, expanding 
the first words and crowding or shortening the rest. The traces behind the large determinative of rk are: a 
round top of a high sign which might be the ideogram yt “father.’’ Below is a heavy oblique stroke, suggesting 
the hind leg of a w, though it is too heavy and the other traces do not confirm a w. _ It may be secondary, a contin- 
uation of the crown cut over most of plate a. Next follows a sign which looks like a big square, irregular in front. 
The following r is very high, but fairly certain. 

2 W3h in irregular form. 


’ This (at first) very difficult group begins g(?)r. The next sign above proved to be g, being different from the 


ordinary form of mw in our text, and this led to the correct reading grg. Consequently, the sign below, looking 


half like ’m “ship,” half w‘h “‘net,” is the leg in a trap. A gap for a narrow sign remains, possibly filled by a 


bookroll. 
4 The three parallel plural strokes of the noun can be guessed from the traces of the first. 


5 I suppose § is to be corrected to sz. I have tried to understand the whole passage as expanding Ros. Greek 


15-16, from a mere conservation of the priestly lands to an augmentation. 

° The expression “‘for adorning Ptah” is thus to be understood because this section treats of buildings. 
See p. 46, note 4, on the double sense of sh* “‘to show, to decorate.”” At any rate, the space does not permit a 
noun before ‘‘ Ptah.” 

’ All these restorations are uncertain and poor Egyptian. The traces do not agree with nb “all, every,’’ but 
still pe with ht ‘‘temple.”’ 

‘The name is disfigured in the sign 2m (misread mr by Egyptologists and later Egyptians) and has ini 

form, also, in the addition of nb “‘lord”’ (if this is not to be read n “‘to”’). 

§ The first stroke of final —y is preserved. 

’° With a remarkable archaizing expression of the h- of Hp. ‘The name Mnevis, with a strange determinative. 








EEE 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 65 


SPECIAL BENEFITS TO THE PRIESTS—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
7f 
hr sS-sn AE itil) i) nb? ht(z)-f— hr  |nw-ts—shnt]  t(z)’-nb(!) —w. 
for that which was becoming to them, the whole time. | his heart for [their command] all the time. 
7 
'y—nf 2‘r r—‘b zt-sn | | E-f [ty?] n(3?) nt é-w-wh}-w wh 
He did (what was) required for their (dead) bodi(es) He gave those (things)® which were required for 
8a 6e 
wrut zsr|wf[Z]. nw— gst é—w—‘; é—-w(?)‘Fy(/),2 ew | FF) 
in a great (and) magnificent way. their burial largely, plentifully, liberally 
Ty-nf s[hn-sn ’w*] hwt-ntr-sn [E-f-ty n—nt é-w shny-w (e) nw- 
He took (on himself) [their] ex[pensesfor] their temples, [He took that! which was spent (for) their 
(or: paid?)" 

[’?]w—sn m hb? wh(?)—‘[h?]* 'ypyw  é-w-'r hbw é-w-’r 
(which) were (used) in festival(s), holocaust(s), | temples (when) were held festivals, (when) were held 
8b of 
| [s]gr(?)> wa[n|® hi twtw(!)—nb glijw'? nm  p-sp mt-nt | ph n(/)® 
the outpouring (of) libation(s) and everything proper | holocausts] and the rest of thethings proper to 
my ’r-sn, tp—t; (!)-rd—nb ryt(!)—w nm(?) 
as is done, (and?) everything prescribed do (them) and(?) 


8c 
(fi a so te 6 Me ee ee ee 
for [the temples of Egypt(?) 





1 Erroneously engraved k for nb. Tr(t) is so written that only the context enables us to distinguish it from 
rnpt ‘‘year.”’ 

* We can restore thus after Ros. hierogl. 3. The word shn (the determinative of which, 7. e., the two arms 
reaching down, is visible in rather indistinct traces) is a modernism which nobody would understand without the 
parallel translations; see note 11 on the demotic shny. According to the prevailing archaizing tendency of the 
hieroglyphic text we should have guessed at a sense: “‘installation(s).”” Ty “he took away,” 7. e., to his account, 
had them charged to himself. 

§ A high sign ib (the upper traces of which first gave the impression of gsr). 

4Thus after Ros. hierogl. 11; literally ‘‘a setting-up of oven(s).’’ ‘The presupposed sign w’/, does not show 
the characteristic form of the upper part; it looks more like a simple ): (cp. 7a). Likewise the following traces 
are indistinct (‘Ain and ‘“‘metal’’). The sense is, however, rather certain. 

* With the frequent confusion of g (instead of g) and hr, and, probably, without determinative, 7. ¢., in abbre- 
viated orthography. 

® Traces of w and of a d crossing it are visible rather high up. Behind, the determinative of water flowing 
in an elongated spiral from the libation vase; above, space for 1. 

7 The hieroglyphic traces do not enable us to find the above restoration on the stone. The bird-sign, which 
begins 8c, is m or ;. As sign of the hawk, expressing “‘god, divine,” it would probably have the whip behind, of 
which we here have notrace. The apparent ¢ before the secondary vertical line might be an accidental hole (in 
traces like r or 'r?). 

8’The group 7;(y) here seems to be confused with ty. 

* The text of Ros. 18 here is disfigured. The copyist of Phile did not understand the form ‘y “large” and 
separated it into two words, rather unsuccessfully it seems. 

10 Plural, the (things) which. 

11 ’T‘he exact sense of this business word seems to be ‘‘to draw from the bank,”’ or “‘to incur a debt,’’ or some- 
thing similar. The Greek rendering 7a TeAvckdpeva eis Ta idva (7. €., special, individual, single, local) iepa (gr. Ros. 
32) explains it, together with the use of shn(é) ‘“‘credit, expense, banking account,”’ or similarly, Griffith, Rylands 
Papyri, III, 287, note 3. 

12 So far filled-in after Ros. dem. 18-19, with some probability, but not absolute certainty. 

8 The Phila stone here confirms the small 1 which my personal copy of the Rosettana has as a doubtful dot; 
it is lacking in the edition of Lepsius. 

“4 A very remarkable orthography, which shows that the form before personal suffixes ai— of the verb ir in 
Lower Egyptian Coptic is more archaic than the corresponding aa-— of the Sahidic dialect. 


66 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


SPECIAL BENEFITS TO THE PRIESTS—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
—sn(?) m(?7) 8 Sah sk SA ke.) [n7] nil?) etre? 
Rg Oe ae SRE rte y are(?) 
69 
Pe ae shwt? iwy® n—(?)nfr(?) | . . . &-Kmy(@). 
[seeking] the very best (for) the two countries,’ good(?) [for] Egypt(?)” . 
81 6h 
sf te coe Cehey) 2 cee | nm n-k’w mtw-phi(t) nt(?) t-Kmy 
that which is proper? . . in [the land]> and and the other proper things of(?) Egypt 
(7. e., traditions) 
74 
()h(w)t- wrw.. . Wa2(?) [—n|] ('r—f—smn—w hr nNW-2)y 
many things |[fine?]. (There) ordered(?) [he let them remain" on _ their condition 
[hA]m—f ’w-[sbwi?|®. . . . w'bw(?) e-h p-hp™ ef mn hit) 
His Majesty concerning(?) [the rights] the sacred ones(?) | according to what is right, he being in the mind (of) 
8e 
ri!) [o-f | [mnk] br [nirw| ntr-mnh hr n-—ntrw, eé-f sn]|* 
being his [heart] [kind] .towards [the gods]’ akind god for the gods  inquirling (for) 
hr-’b(!)8 spw-sn nfrw nw—pht(1)™ n n—rpyw 
wishing (read: seeking) benefits for them their proper (honors) in the temples 
&f 7b 
'w s-mw -sn m ar-> | f. | [et(y)-’r-w myy?]. 
to renew them in his time. [to renew them ?].!° 








1 Also. the traces between the next two secondary vertical lines offer nothing positive. Group 1 at first looked 
like n[t]y ‘‘which,” but the final —y would show only one straight stroke with certainty. Sw “their” (or with a 
verb “‘they’’) is more probable. ‘The remaining traces of signs are even more problematic. 

2 The : before the heron stands in a secondary hole. A bookroll between ¢ and the plural strokes is possible, 
but the engraving would be very shallow. 

’ Or, we may read the two plant-signs more fully: “Upper and Lower Egypt.” 

4 Or, plural ssw? 

5 This word after the trace. 

° Thus, after the analogy of line 6), etc. Otherwise ’w might also be the auxiliary of a verb, ete. | 

’ Thus, after Ros. Gr. 34, dem. 20, as the following words suggest. Where we have restored mnh “kind,” 
stands a high m under or over an erasure. ‘The engraver put this beginning the words » ntr mnh “‘as (n or, of) a 
kind god”’ and omitted the next two signs, confused by the double occurrence of the sign “ god.”’ 

* This corresponds with Greek Ros. 35, rpooruvOavoyueres (re Ta THY iepHv TiuwTara) and Ros. demot. 20, é-f 
sn, “he inquired.’’ Consequently, the verb seems to be corrupted from snw “asking, inquiring” (read sn, §n, 
for ’b, nw for the heart-sign). 

* The determinative of the sundisk looks strangely disfigured, so that at first it gives the impression of ’} “heart.” 

'° These three doubtful traces of groups do not agree with Ros. 19, which has merely the words n—mtw ph(w?) 
nt ph n n—’rpyw “the things proper, which are proper in the temples.’”’ Our inscription must have expanded those 
words considerably, perhaps, in order to improve the style which in this part of the demotic version must appear 
to the hasty reader confused and full of repetitions. 

Thus: i. e., “he confirmed”’ (better than “‘he established’’). 

” So far according to Ros. 19, but it is true that the space is not very favorable to this restoration; neither is 
the hieroglyphic text. 

8 Unusual determinative of sn(?) or of wd “for,” then corrected. 

‘4This word seems to be recognizable under corrected traces and thus insures this whole piece of restora- 
tion after Ros. demot. 20. f 

* Thus, after Ros. 20 and our hieroglyphic text, but the space is again so scanty that we must ask whether the 
text has not been mutilated. It is quite certain that the following words of Ros., p—/-h(}) pr—‘ ‘‘in the time of 
his kingship,”’ must have been omitted, notwithstanding the fact that their equivalent has been kept in the hiero- 
glyphic version. 


a P 





THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 67 


THE THANKS OF THE GODS. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
Rdy-n'} [ntrw] my-qd-sn [ Ty? n—| ntrw 
(There) have given [the gods?] all together [((There) have given] the gods 

h' ntrwt r[—db}t?| [um n—nirwt| trw 
and the goddesses? [in?] [return?] (for) [and the goddesses] all 
9a ‘ 

—sn [n-t-Sbyt my 

them (7. e., for these things?)3 lin reward for these (things)* 


Mie! cscs. 9502 ati abawe, oe 8 
(that) did [the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, 


the son of the Sungod], to the king Ptolemy, 
7c 
Piwyrwmys ‘nh  2t, Pth mr, nk: ertihawed ihe 
Ptolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah, living forever,] beloved of [Ptah,] 
[ntr] pr p-ntr nt pr 
[the God] Epiphanes (the success described below): the God Epiphanes, (the following) : 


THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION. 


7d 


B(!)tn4 n ntr(w)(?) [p?|n NAN LE latin: (50 SaleShyed shin n— ntrw, 
The rebel against the gods,  this- (one) namely(?) [that man]impious against the gods, 


1 Or more mechanically, following Ros. 5, ‘‘(there) have-given [fo him]”’ (n-f), with a later resuming of the 
object (“to the king’’?). This would, of course, be awkward style. (For ‘have given [to them],”’ 2-sn, the 
space is insufficient), 

* Thus, after the parallelism. The strange traces are explained by the ligature of “god” and “goddess”’ 
(=serpent), Ros. 5. Our text seems to have given erroneously both that ligature and its explanatory dissolution 
into two groups. 

8 We should like to restore after Ros. 5, but first, it is impossible to find (m)—’swy “‘in reward, in return” in the 
traces. An 1 (or ’r??) is certain; above, to the right, there seems to be merely a vertical stroke; this is probably, 
but not clearly, one of the plural strokes of nirwt; the traces to the left confirm this, although they are irregular 
and partly too high to be intentional. What follows is obscure and very unlike the regular orthography of 2b}t, 
db}t ‘‘return, compensation,” which we should expect. We have to read it without phonetic complement (and 
determinative?), treating as secondary all the traces over my ‘“‘sic’’ and running through the head of the dd}- 
hieroglyph. 

4 Evidently the kin of the stone is to be corrected into btn. ‘The demonstrative has an unusual position. 

5 This space, again, is scanty, and furthermore, the hieroglyphic text does not seem to contain these words. 
They ought, however, to be here, forming the important logical connection between the part made up of quota- 
tions from the Rosettana and the part treating the new theme of the decree. 


‘ 


68 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 

C2)r wn it b‘r ’mty Fnt(i)(?) n—m-w(?) ’r’r(?)® hit) n 
who had caused ?] fighting(?), instigating? war? within | blaspheming(?) them(?),” having acted as leader of 
9c 7e 
Kmt, twt ‘wny|wt on ms‘(?) bks® hn t} Kmy | ’r(?) 
Egypt, gathering insolent people of the soldiers(?) rebellion in Egypt having 


m  w(?)[h3|(w)i-nb hr(?) bt;(?)[w]-sn 


from(?) all districts® on account of(?) their crimes(?) 





1 This meaning of the root wf, which usually signifies ‘to be glad,’ seems to occur only here. As noun, it is 
rendered by emlah: ‘war, fight, battle’? (9b demot. 4b?), cp.56. Is it the same word as old wnp, Naville, 
Deir el B. 57, 10, wnpw-t m Thnw: “thou (fem.) fightest (?) in the Libyan land’’? 

? Or rather: “leading war, being leader in war.’’ ‘The verb §} (with a weak third radical, appearing as w or y; 
in Neo-Egyptian style also as ’w) has not been correctly understood, Brugsch, Dict., 1424, Suppl., 1218. Better 
Maspero, Etudes Egypt. 25. It is often a synonym of wzy-: “to order, to command;’’ LD. III, 29a, both verbs are 
connected, likewise RI H. 169=Mar. Karn. 15, 25; connected with another synonym, shnw n Sy, Ostracon 
Florence (AZ. 1880; 98 = Rec. Trav. 3,5). It is amore solemn word, therefore used principally of the decrees of the 
highest authority, of the decreeing god (Stabl Antar 11, DH I, Il, 46,4=RI H 139, LD. III, 240, Senuhyt 126), 
whence the god Say (Greek Psais): ‘destiny, fate.” Or it is used at least of the king decreeing specially important 
resolutions, principally large constructions, Rec. Trav. 7, 128, Mar. Karn. 12, 5 and 8; 15,15=R I H. 166; ibid., 
150; Mar. Abyd. II, 7, LD. III, 24n; s; 72; Berlin Pap. 29 (AZ. 74), I 4; 8; II, 13; Siut-Rifeh IV, 56; of the very 
highest authority, Senuhyt 51. ‘Therefore LD. II, 149 ’w §;-ny bkw must be understood in passive sense: “works 
were charged tome.” ‘This dative is, therefore, expressed more solemnly by m—lr, see Maspero-Brugsch: “‘not did 
I forget what was ordered to me,” a phrase in which we find also fr ‘‘to,’’ Louvre C. 55; even n-tp—hr is employed, 
Senuhyt 121. Of the “imposing” of regularly returning work, LD. II, 122, 13 (Ameni); of imposed socage Harris 
12a, 1b, 9; 32, 7, etc., of taxes (ibid., passim, D H I, II, 42, 10, PS B A. 1887, 42), of a time, Anast. VIII, 5, 3, 3. 
See also Mar. Abyd. II, 30, 35; Prisse 14, 12, AZ. 1880, 49, D H I, 7, Louvre C 167. ‘“To appoint (an official to, 
r, a position’), Pap. Turin 17, 5; Pithomstela, 2, Pap. Salt rev. 2, 1. In evil sense as here, it is rare; see the 
great inscription of Har-em-heb in my Egyptol. Researches I, 59, fragm. 15 and cp. pl. 91, 1. 14 “the insolent people 
(‘wnw, as above)-who instigated acts of insolence (s}spw-n—‘wn) in the land;’ with a living object, LD. III, 12d, 
19, of a rebel: “‘he instigated his lot of companions’’ (S;w-f hbsw-f, a rather obscure passage). Thus the above 
usage remains peculiar, like so many expression; of our text. 

’ In Latin this would be rendered by concitans Martem, i. e., with a poetical use of the name of the Semitic war 
god, Ba‘al=“‘war, battle,” like Latin Mars or Greek Ares for “war’’ in poetical style. 

4 The determinative of the sparrow partly visible. 

° The apparent absence of the bow and of the plural signs make this seductive reading difficult, it is true, but 
it seems to be parallel to Ros. hierogl. 1. 

° The first seeming w may be secondary. We might try to read a preposition composite with m-, like m—hn(t) 
“from within.” ‘The following feminine noun in the plural, however, can not well be anything else but whwi, 
whjwt ‘tribes,’ which often is used poetically for ‘districts, written with the stick as ideogram (as Pap. Harris I).” 

’'The first group certainly is sx, snty in the sense: ‘‘to offend, to curse, to blaspheme”’ in the “‘ Negative Con- 
fession”’ of the Book of the Dead (ed. Naville, 125, 29, 35, 36), etc. The —?(7) is here, in a remarkable way, separated 
from the root, showing that the writer knew well the original form of the root to have been sn, Sny. Under this 
primitive form appear both the meaning ‘‘to conjure,’ most akin to the above sense, and “‘to quarrel,” while they 
seem to have been separated, in Coptic, as $ine and Sont. Some may find this distinction here in st and may trans- 
late ‘‘who quarrelled with them, strove against them, but’’; I prefer the meaning intermediate between both devel- 
opments. (The Paris ‘Chronicle’ (ed. Spiegelberg), has, pl. vira, 1. 1, a similar group which the editor compares 
with sn: ‘“‘to exclude, to keep back.’’ The lack of a coherent context makes this comparison quite uncertain, as 
well as that with the verb of our Phil passage.) The object (7)—’m-—w “them”’ has been disfigured by the engraver. 

° The first ’r could be explained as the sign of the perfect participle, but more likely we have simply an erro- 
neous repetition. 

* Demotic Chronicle of Paris 3, 7, bgs. Spiegelberg (Gloss. No. 78), connects this with the older ba—ga-—sa of 
the Dakhel-stela (Rec. Trav. 21, 14) “confusion” or “‘rebellion.”” Whether this be developed from the older word 
bgs ‘“‘to be sad” (Spiegelberg, 1. 1. 19) or not, our spelling bks seems to treat the g erroneously as merely assimilated 
to the sonant letter 6 from original k; it is evidently the same word as above. 








a 





‘THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. . 69 
THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION—Ccontinued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
[‘?] w(t!) ; hrp—sn ['r-w  bd]tw(?) [2] h3(w)é(2)w 
in treating violently! (those who) administered? [They did] abominable things’ (to) (the) rulers 
od >, f es 
| tw hr—-sk hmw(t!) iSw; ’r-w 5g}(?) | ?rpyw—‘Fy 
the nomes,’ profaning the sanctuaries® (of) nomes; they profaned(?)” many temples. 
[th; shmw-ntr] —sn t(y)—4(?) [nw-shmw n] ntr(?) 
vio[lating] their [sacred idols?} | injuring(?)!! [their] divine [statues] 
oe 
h' wn|y|w Rereenee |) 1 ue ee mes ee Ll EY a it 
together with those that were (in) the temples and iets ptiestsnmaieast. 2 oh.  ~ suppressing(?)” 
79 
—sn(?) hr®(?) hywy(!)-sn — hsf-sn' | [n-] mt-phi(i?) [n nw-hwy|w 
of them and(?) their altars [pro]hibiting [the] duehonor[s for their altar]s 
<4 twt —sn 


todo that whichis proper (for) them® 





1 The —¢ ought to stand before the determinative, whether it was the feminine ending or a silent part of the 
determinative ‘‘locality.”” (The word wyt: “ruin,’’ can be used only of buildings falling to pieces. Neither is a 
guess like ‘‘[driving into] exile’ more probable). ‘Thus the most plausible translation is the one given above, 
assuming that the two signs after the “bad bird”’ are corrupted from the “‘strong arm.” ‘The restoration of the pre- 
ceding word, bi}w, is made rather certain by the traces of the sign ¢}; the reed-leaf in place of the determinative, of 
course, needs an emendation, probably into the ‘“‘bad man.” 

2 The irp-— scepter very poorly engraved, nevertheless sure after the demotic version. If the —sn does not 
stand at a wrong place, /rp has here a rare verbal use. 

3 The plural expressed by repeating the determinative ‘‘city”’ three times; the third time it is misunderstood 
by the engraver as two parallel lines, 7. e., final y. 

4 Sk possibly chosen after. the demotic corresponding word sg(}). It may thus confirm the view that the 
demotic version preceded the hieroglyphic. 

° The -t seems to be a mistake for the determinative “‘locality’’ or ‘‘house’’; the word hm: “holiest room, 
sanctuary, adytum,” which the demotic version demands, is masculine. See the same mt, r4b. 

° I try to separate the group (which looks almost like § and the determinative ‘‘cake’’) into m, horizontal h (the 
hu of syllabic orthography), and a poor, round r, misread from the hieratic. This is a violent makeshift, but other 


_ explanations (as taking the r for disfigured ) before );) would be much more doubtful. 


’ The verb lisf in unusual form, with the crossing f quite high (and, perhaps, a short “‘strong arm” crossing 
it below ?). - 

8 The bookroll as determinative is to be read after traces of the mummy-like statue. The sz, which then 
follows, is the possessive suffix of ‘wt and the sense is literally ‘their proper things.” 

* The usual orthography of this word is btw, but the shortening here could be explained as dropping only 
the final —w for the sake of the following plural ending -w. ‘The above restoration remains more probable than 
other guesses, e. g., than: “they killed, ill treated,” etc. The suppression of an of the dative is quite ordinary. 

The word is, so far, known only from this passage. Whether it is related to the substantive sq} of the Paris 
Chronicle (5, 22) and distinguished only by the determination can not be decided while the latter word remains 
obscure. Coptic So(0) ge, “to hurt, to violate,’’ seems to be used mostly with persons as object. 

11 This looks like the verb }f: ‘‘to do wrong, to injure,’ Demotic Book of the Dead, 29; written like 5t¢, Kufi 10, 29. 
I do not know, however, what the causative construction with ty- would mean. For this reason and on account 
of the fact that the determinative seems to be the “bad bird,’’ I consider as possible also the reading t(y)—3g, Coptic 
tako, i. e., ‘ruined, destroyed.’’ ‘The g would then be poorly engraved or corrupted to ¢, and the expression would 
refer to iconoclasm, while the reading given above would point to offending and wronging the majesty of the 
gods residing in heaven. It would, however, apply poorly to the priests. 

2 Of the verb, only the determinative “strong, violent, action of the arm” is clearly preserved, parallel 
with the determinatives of the hieroglyphic text. (Before it a group like ‘‘gods.’’) 


70 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
of 7h 
[hr | glw)t-sn | hm|w—-sn?] | [nw-?] (htp?)w hn n-w- gywt(?) —n-nir 
[for(?)]! their shrines (and) [their?| adyta? (and) their sacrifices(?) in their divine shrines(?)® 
[sh] m[zw] nw ntrw. W’-sn 
[(and) the stat]ues®? of the gods. They devastated(?)4|). 9. 2. . 2. 1. 1 «4 0% «(5 
nwt? h‘ ms‘(w?)—sn 
the cities together with their populace(?)® 
I oa 8a 


hriw(?) —hl 


[doing to women(?) and] young children, 


m. \hmwi |: 4 <5 
(even) of [women(?) and little children. 


WES 2 ig mytt— ’r(y)w(?)? k-hw bi(w)(?) [kt-?|hew(?) 
committing crimes] of such kind other ones* | [committing] crimes(?)" other ones 


l Of m1, an? 

2 The word is probable but not absolutely certain. 

3 We guess this restoration from the determinative. ‘The space would also allow the supplying of a verb of 
its own (like “they dishonored, profaned,” etc.) before this noun. 

4’This verb is not frequent and therefore presents difficulties. It may be related to the root w(;y), ‘‘to be 
distant’’; we find the Egyptian scribes, at least, confounding both words in the variants of Toth. Leps. 99, 23, 29; 
also the verb rw’: ‘‘to remove,” is not easily separated from it. W’; (determinative: 1, soft action of the hand; 2, 
action of the feet) means ‘“‘to remove,” of booty, Merneptah-inscription (D H I II, 5, 61, etc.), of persons (determ. 
dto) Pap. Turin 4, 5; 6, 9; Anast. I, 17, 4, shepherd story, Pap. Berl. III, 170 (wy, det. legs): “to carry away, to 
kidnap.’’ Wy in obscure passage, Rec. Trav. 8,161. Causative s—w’ (determ. legs) likewise: ‘to remove (thirst),”’ 
Miss. Frang. V, 517. M w’-tw rf: “do not remove thyself from him,”’ Prisse 14, 11. The passage LD. III, 202¢ 
(w’ grg) is obscure. Ebers 109, 8, Stern’s reading st w’;t (det. arm) might be questioned; in Pap. Ebers the noun 
w’;t: ‘‘disgust,” seems to mean: ‘“‘the impulse of removing, abhorrence.’’ Other passages may rather belong to 
rw;, €. g., Anast. VIII, 3, 13, Sallier I, 5, 1 (of ‘‘unloading”’). The reduplication w’}w’; is known only from a 
single passage (Amnast. I, 28, 2, det. ‘‘confusion’”’ or “separation,” and “‘wickedness’’), applying it to a faulty 
literary style. The meaning given by our text seems thus to be rather peculiar, including “‘to devastate, vacate, 
expel, plunder.” 

°’The arrangement shows that three parallel plural strokes stood below, thus indicating space for a small 
sign like -¢ behind the half-preserved circle of ‘‘city.’”’ 

° I assume the hieroglyph “soldier” here to have the same meaning as Coptic me(e) Se, ‘multitude, people in 
the widest sense,”’ as irregularly in demotic use. 

’The above translation (assuming an archaic use of the noun mytt: “likeness, identity, copy, likewise,”’ 
instead of the preposition my: “‘like,”’ so that we should obtain myit—(’)r(y)w “‘likewise’’) must remain uncertain 
with such fragmentary text. Thus I have hesitated for a long time as to whether the three traces behind, running 
in horizontal direction, could not be read as ’r—rn “they did;”’ I seek these words now rather in the gap. See the 
following note. Lacking the context, I am unable to decide. . 

* This pronominal form seems to stand here not absolutely, i. e., as substantive, as mostly in archaic style. 
Later the absolute is not the exclusive usage, as might erroneously be concluded from the too scanty quotations 
in Erman, Neuaegypt. Gramm. § 92. Yet it stands as epithet always before the noun, e. g., Anast. I, 22, 3; Sallier 
II, 9, 5, Harris I, 6, 6; 76, 11, etc., Canop. 33. Already Toth. 175, Ani, 1, 18 (=ht, Naville, 1. 17), often in demotic, 
e. g., Canop. 18, Ros. 11, 19. “The Coptic kekéuni, kekauni “others,’’ which, notwithstanding the assimilation of 
the second consonant (i) to the first (k), has originated from our kt-ht, kt—-(’)ht “another kind”’ (kekauni meaning 
really “another kind of beings’’), stands between both usages, taking the place of kt-ht as substantival plural 
and yet showing in its composition the prefixed employment of an adjective, before uni “‘being(s).” The sub- 
stantival use kth, indeed, still occurs in demotic (Ros. 20), and the postposition in our passage seems unique for 
the latest style, so that it could be explained only as having half-independent, appositional, supplementary char- 
acter. Otherwise, taken as quite substantival, it would confirm the reading ‘‘they did’’ (’7-sz), which we have 
con-idered in the preceding note and would furnish thus the translation ‘‘. . . likewise. ‘They did other such 
(things), did the like.’”’ ‘The demotic text, however, seems to point to the above translation. 

* It is easiest to consider the strange group for “‘sacrifice’”’ simply as disfigured form itp. The next ques- 
tionable group seems g;wt “‘shrines”’ (with g and } in ligature) rather than [mw] ‘‘sanctuaries.”’ 

'° In this hazardous restoration we have to admit that the orthography of hrtw, “children,” is unusual (assum- 
ing a varying repetition of the ideographic sign “‘child’’ as determinative) and uncertain. ‘The group suggests 
bi(w) and seems verbal. Probably the determinative of the ‘‘wicked bird”’ stands there as the sign before the last. 
For the restoration of the last group to k(4)héw: “‘ other(s),”’ see the note on the hieroglyphic text. I first thought 


ot gah f= **ae thnatich hax worn nutshell Peele tae Lbh ee oer ees eee ae 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. wt 


THE BAD TIMES DURING THE REBELLION—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
m-—tp SW 
in the condition (of) anarchy(?). : 
rob 8b ; 
[Hlift-sn | hir nw ww | n—h|tyw]  [n—- ts]w. 
They robbed the taxes of the (administrative) [stealing] the [taxes of the nomles. 
districts; 
hb-sn mw E-w = hb(?) mw 

they damaged* (or: ruined) the water (constructions); | They damaged’ (the) water (works). 

h}‘—sn Be Sa. bali bens, E-w 
they abandoned [the dam (?) constructions].* They 


THE KING SPECIALLY PROTECTS THE TEMPLES DURING THE REBELLION. 


rin n—st byty 
(There) made® the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, 
roc 
aci lee | Ptw,twmys, ‘nh zt, 
the son of [the Sun], Ptolemy, ever living, 


Pth mr s-wew(?) ’s(?) ’w [sdwi] 
beloved of Ptah, orders(?)*® also(?) for these 











1 Literally: “‘emptiness, condition of vacancy,” i. e., time without government. ‘This is parallel with the 
famous passage (Harris, I, 75, 1) where the years of anarchy, without a legitimate king, are called ‘“‘empty”’ 
(Swyw) (priests), Mar. Abyd., I, 6, 30, (of desolated and dilapidated tombs), where we see that ¢p has lost its original 
meaning “beginning,” and may freely be translated “state, condition” (or “pitch, height’’?). Second determi- 
native “arm.” 

- 2 Read hitf. The earliest examples of this word betray, by the syllabic orthography hu-t-f, that it is a Canaanaic 
loanword, 7. e., Hebrew /iataph (not hataph, which seems to have a h— after the cognate languages); like that Hebrew 
word it expresses ‘“‘(open) plundering in war” (LD., III, 16a, 6; 65a, 4; Mar. Karn. 37, 30=RI H. 36), while Coptic 
hoft has assumed the sense “‘to steal.” In our passage we can follow the transition to a disgraceful meaning. 

3 The word hb(;) might be understood also as “to diminish, to cut short,” cp. e. g., Sallier I, 7, 3 =Anast. 
VII, 2, 4, (of failure to clothe), AZ. 1884, 39, 1. 17 (of temple income) ; similarly Rec. Trav. 16, 43, Mon. Div. 29a, 5, 
Mar. Abyd, II, 36, 4, Totb. Nav. 125, Intr. 13 and 16 (of sacrifices). Eloguent Peasant, Berl. 11, 18=IV, 48, parallel 
with hz. The word has, however, often stronger sense: “‘to ruin, destroy, annihilate,” e. g., Lepsius, Auswahl 12 
(object: tribes), Toth. Nav. 154, 6 (corpses), Pap. Leyden, I, 344, 15, 1 (a country), Hierat. Inscr. 29,, 7 (the god 
annihilates sinners), Peasant, Berlin, II, 142, etc.; above all, Damanhur 22 = Ros. Gr. 26, diapbeipav. Consequently, 
I should not limit the above passage to the tame measure of “digging off irrigation canals,’’ but would include the 
opening.of dams, a means of warfare as common in Egypt as in Babylonia or Holland; cp. Polybius, V, 62, 4. It 
was considered as a desperate action and not quite fair because it entailed long labor for restorations. 

4’The determinative “‘house, building’? seems to be recognizable. It would be easy to restore the traces to 
ht-ntr “temple,’’ but the profanations of sacred property by the rebels have been described before. ‘There is 
also no space for a plural mark with ‘ ‘temple(s).” Thus it is difficult to fill the gap after the verb; with ‘‘dam’’ we 
should not expect the determinative “building.” 

’ The first idea suggesting itself is to make this a relative clause: “‘[the constructions] (which) the king had 
made.” I think, however, the style (perhaps also the unusual verbal form in -t-n, which, of course, must not be 
treated after the classical grammar) points to the beginning of a newsection. Constructions of Ptolemy V. 


could not be meant. ' 
° This meaning is probable according to the context. The reading of the hieroglyphic traces seems partly: 


wz (with small, crossing serpent z?), bookroll, plural strokes. If the word shnw “expenses,” discussed above 
_(p. 35, note 2) was meant, it would be strongly dishgured. S-wz-w means: “orders, administrative measures.” 


7 See note 3 on the hieroglyphic word hb(;), which seems also to be employed in the demotic text. 


72 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE KING SPECIALLY PROTECTS THE TEMPLES DURING THE 
REBELLION—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
Be : 
—n wrw ’s rf] fee [ESE 7 ae de 
[things]' many and _ [he] showed? . . « [He] showed care [considerably] 
rod &d 
| mh?—nbt r s—wz;(/)* — [hwt-ntr] e(!)8 t(y)-wz; | n-rpyw. 
all care in order to protect [the temples]. for protecting the temples. 
ty oho sees [is?]w nt H;‘-f"* mtkt(t);3t n Wynn ’m-—w 
He [plalced® [there] [troop]s_ of He placed aforce of Greeks in them 
roe Se 
Hy w-nbw | ms‘[w] hn n- rm(t)hw | ’r 
Greeks (and) soldiers’ (from) among the men who had 
[m]wt(y?) wny[w] nwd rrr 
(from) among the people (who had) moved*® | [reformed?], (?or: done according to (m-s}?) his will) 


&f 
'r(?)— hn(t?)-w [e] n-rm(f)w t—-Kmy | 
moving themselves” to the people (of) Egypt 


m Bat sdm>___ tp-t}-rdwy-f nt e-'r p-hp hn t—-Kmly 
in Egypt (to) obeying his orders, who did thelaw(ful things) in Egypt 
rof 
hnm h{r | -[sn]° . rrr 
being joined together [with them i in zeal for the gods 2] 
[]w-sn my ms hn‘—sn. 


they were like (people) born with them." 


1 Supplying (’)ht: “things,’’ seems unnecessary. 

2 The traces can be restored with great probability after the demotic text. 

’’The m stands for the horizontal hieroglyph h, the s for the sign ‘‘vertebree.”’ 

4’The small w slung through the z; has become meaningless. 

° To be supplied thus evidently. The seeming }; is strange, however. 

° For nty. 

7 This word hardly refers to the “Greek troops” as a superfluous apposition. It seems that we can find here a 
valuable indication that those repenting rebels belonged to the soldier class; see “warriors’’ 50. 

*’The Greek original seems to have used xveicOar “‘to move oneself’’ (not only airouodeiv ‘‘to desert, to go 
over’). The awkward Egyptian imitation employs a very archaic word nwz, later nwd: “to move oneself, to shake 
oneself, to wriggle, to jump up.” (See Pyr. P.107=N. 75; M. 73, Harhotep 191, 330, 369 (causative s-), LD. II, 52 
(s-nwz), Totb. Naville 64, 10, 19, 35; 78, 12, Med. Berlin 20, 10, Ebers 19, 5; Berlin Amonritual 7, 4, Louvre C. 107 
(corrupted to nwr), Peasant-story, Berlin II, 6, 98, 106; IV, 2 5» 34, etc.) ‘The demotic rendering seems even more 
awkward and artificial. 

* The sign in unusual form, assimilated to the human ear. 

” Behind hnm(w), “(they) being joined,” the horizontal h, with space for r. 

4 Greek original, probably: like relatives, as ovyyeveis, or similarly. 

” This reading is guessed from the rather uncertain hieroglyphic parallel. The extant traces point to an 
unusual group (hw(w)t: ‘““abodes?’’). 

3 Incorrectly m for e as often. 

4 The stroke between the group expressing the root and the termination —/ is strange and might lead to finding 
in it various archaic elements of inflection. It is best understood as erroneous, having arisen from a filling-point 
in the original manuscript on papyrus. 

'® See Spiegelberg’s Petubastis-glossary, No. 247, for the demotic use of Coptic hon. ‘The demotic version 
seems to incur repetition in rendering the difficult Greek clause. Cp. with the hieroglyphic equivalent. We 
might find in hn(t?)-w, “they moved (themselves),” also an indication of volunteering by those Egyptian armed 
guards, but the passage remains partly obscure. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 73 


THE KING SPECIALLY PROTECTS THE TEMPLES DURING THE 
REBELLION—Ccontinued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
ria 
‘w- | [sn?n]_ rdt(?) es See 
(They! did not] permit to approach(?)? [the A 
[btn 2} ie ot gt ae ee hes] 2 [ef] 
followers of?] [the reb]lel who had inst[igated] war | [leader]!? of(?) rebellfion against him] 
1h h yt?) nm(?) [pf l-ye(?) 
against him and his father(?). and(?) [his| father(?) 
r1b 
Dy(?)-f(?) [nts er = {tIr(7)° | ee en aie Se 92" t 8(?) 
[He] gave (money?) [to?] them to do(?)® ens ee A ee [like?] it(?). 
Sh 
my-nn. Rdy-n hm-f ty—wt Ty(?)-f | ty—w ht nb 
thus.’ (There) caused His Majesty that be taken | He caused to be taken silver (and) gold 
he nh m_ tnw-‘(w) ’w ie ‘Sy (e?) p-[t] e-tb(;)t(?) . 
silver (and) gold in great quantities to the grounds | much (to). the [ground?]# FOU Tie oh 
Iic oa 
| [rv— d]b;(?)[¢| rdt | 
for the purpose of(?)® causing 
"n|—-t]w isw 'w Bat 
(that) be brought troops to Egypt 
‘ 11d 
m—sw—n [s]-’p | ww Se es tn Ieee ESTO) 
for the tax(es)!° (of) the nomes!! sw O08 “the, *nomest?) 








“tH, be,” the king? 

* This last group at first seems clear, but the traces may be deceptive. A big ¢y ‘“‘to take” could also be found 
in the seeming spr. ‘The first gap of the line could also be filled by the restoration ’w'tm rdt “in order not to permit.”’ 

§ The apparent h‘[—f??] “with [him??]” yields no sense. It must consequently be merely accidental. 

* Thus to be restored after line 9d. The s} is partly visible (the captive before it has exaggerated execution 
of his bound arms); the determinative of B‘r (see on gd) is disfigured from the Seth-animal to the hare. 

* The traces over f are not very favorable to reading the cake yt, it is true, but the space behind (for the 
ideograph stroke). 

* So according to the traces, but it yields no convincing sense. The last group seems to be clearly rr; the 
above translation as ’r is almost a correction. He gave for (Jr?) them “two parts,” i. ¢., “two thirds,” however, 
would yield difficult sense; the temples would hardly have paid the missing third. A tempting restoration would 
be ‘n(?)—sn r’r “they turnea again to doing,” 7. ¢., “did again,” implying a pause in the rebellion. The space 
under ‘n(?), however, seems insufficient for the necessary determinative “legs.” 

7 Or connected with the following words: ‘‘thus, likewise, H. M. caused.” 

* The phrase: “to give to the ground,” usually means ‘‘to remit, to overlook’’ (cp. Ros. hierogl. 2). The 
above variant: “to take to the ground,” must mean: ‘‘to expend.’ Cp. for this sense that h)w ‘‘expenses, 
spending” means, literally: ‘‘the falling down.” 

* The above translation is not easily harmonized with the space at the beginning of rra. It seems impossible 
to find there the preposition [r—d]d;[¢], [y—-2]b3[t] or its apparent variants m dbw r2f. ‘Thus I have assumed that 
the two signs r and db;, 2b;, were crowded over the foot of the 6. The following gap, requiring a normal square of 
signs, is to be filled with ¢ and a bookroll. 

“It would be easier to read simply ’p: “taxation,” but the gap must be filled. ‘The above restoration seems 
to amount to the same sense, however, literally meaning “‘inspection, revision.’’ 

It is tempting to correct the w—bird into the hawk, so that we should obtain ‘“‘temples.”’ ‘The sense of the 
whole passage might then be changed into a statement of absolute liberality towards the temples, without taxing 
them. It remains, however, safest to assume here a much more modest sense, namely, that the king is praised for 
spending the income from the taxes “‘of the nomes”’ (7. e., of the whole inland, all Egypt outside of Alexandria) 
on recruiting Greek mercenaries instead of using it for himself. (The preposition m ’swy seems to be used more 
as “for” in the sense of “in return for something,” synonymously with “because of,” while r db;t and its synonym 
r sbwt stand often also with final sense for “obtaining results.’’) 

™ The space suggests that the demotic text was shorter than the hieroglyphic version. Both writing systems, 
however, admit much arbitrary crowding together and extending of the text. 

"8 See the parallel hieroglyphic expression for the meaning of this phrase. 


74 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE KING SPECIALLY PROTECTS THE TEMPLES DURING THE 


REBELLION—Continued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. , DEMOTIC TEXT. 
gob 
w S18 f a ee ae e [n-'|rpy[w]  Kmyt(?)..|... 
in order to protect [the temples of Egypt against ?]! [to protect§(?) the] temples (of) Egypt(?) [against 
[sb]’w [77] [ihky —-sn ws S30(?) 0°... ty eee 
the impious ones (who) |had?] violated? them. the im]pious [ones ?] (who) violated them.° 


THE DOWNFALL OF THE REBELLION IN THE THEBAIS. 


Ire 


'w-sn S—'Y spr m-b;h  hm-f ’r|—w| ‘n— smy |. ie 
(There) was brought up* areport before His Majesty (There was] brought report [before the king, 
oc 
n ‘bd IV Smw [hrw| . . 4 m-ed: bee 0. wae ee 
in the 12th month, day [3], thus: See ee ee Te ie | 
11f 
hf-sn | hill p-s];[b(2) es 
(there) has been seized captive [that wicked mant in} that impious one(?).! [He was captured?] in 
od 
wnt 'y h‘f hspt XIX p—mlh | é@-r-w nm-f n hspt XIX 
the battle deliv me with him, year 19, the battle delivered withhim, in the year 19, 
smw *bd III i [hrw XXIV m sq ‘nh?| bt III Sm(w)" hw XXIV ef—‘nh 
the 11th month (Epiphi) [day 24, as live prisoner(?)].° month 11, day 24, he being alive. 
" ge 
s(?)[m}|-sn oy ae E-w sm;(/) | ee 
They s[lew] his son [the eldest 2,7 (There) was slain’ [his eldest(?) son] 





1 There is space for one or two more words. 

> This restoration seems to be quite certain; the position of the ¢ (before the /, instead of over it) shows that 
a sign must be restored. ‘This leads to the restoration of ’r, the sign of the perfect tense (or the relative r). 

3‘That is, to the high throne. 

* A rather small number as date according to the space. 

> The trace at the end of line rze seems to point to the above (slightly pleonastic) restoration. 

° This restoration adds pleonasms, but seems unavoidable. 

7 The space permits the filling-in of one narrow, high sign, like the standing man with statt =sms: “eldest.” 

* The traces fit this restoration (which requires /(y)—wz} or t(y) ’r-w wz}) very poorly, although it would seem 
to be quite certain after the context. ‘Those traces make us rather think of “‘sins’’ committed against the temples. 
So we must assume that the engraver disfigured the passage strongly, and corrected only “the nomes”’ over the 
errors, leaving the corruption for wz). 

* We can guess after the hieroglyphic parallel as I have rendered above, but the single traces allow no certain 
restoration. If the word s;b was employed here it ought to have the plural sign, which is certainly absent; it is 
not very likely that the word is used as an adjective after rm[i|w “people.” Thy “‘to violate” is usually written 
very differently from what we can recognize here on the stone. : 

’° Thus I venture to restore the isolated traces in the inner angle of the arm of the figure cut above the inscrip- 
tion. Consequently, the verb must be sought in the following gap. (Kp “‘to capture’ is written in Ros. 1o in a 
way which forbids to restore those traces to [g]p or [k] p.) 

“The season sign has not the regular form, but it can not be read with a different value. Some scratches before 
it look as though the date had been erased and recut. 

' We have to restore this verb according to the sense and the hieroglyphic text, although the engraver has 
mutilated it quite badly. Since he did not understand the rare word in che ink copy written on stone, he cut in 
three parallel vertical strokes instead of the horizontal s and interrupted the very long m;—-sign; che following 
group likewise is disfigured. ‘The word seems to bé used in the shorter form sm; (Ros. dem. 16), not in the more 
archaic orthography sm3m (Gnost. Paris ed. Maspero, 1, 17, etc.). The mutilation by the engraver looks, at first 
sight, like an abnormal pgeé, but this would be senseless. ¢ 


| 
| 


ee 


ae 





THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 75 


THE DOWNFALL OF THE REBELLION IN THE THEBAIS—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
mr-(m¥}! | 
the chief [commander of the army] 
sb’w h' wrw(?) 
(of) the godless ones(?) together with [the chiefs ?]? 
2b se 
| nt Nhs(y)w [m?]s(y) hn‘ ie eee Pate. DUE nm-f. H-w ’n(y) n'—m-f 
of the Ethiopians brought with him. » « « « gathered with him. He was brought 
of oe 
w-sn n’mf |w slit nity r hm-f e p-|m’ nt-é pr-‘ n'—’m-f. E-f [ty?] 
He was led to the place where was His Majesty. | to the place (at) which the king was. He [gave(?) 
I2¢e 9g 
| ’w-[dy??]-sn hsf(?) n(?) Od[fw] rae wei tp -[ncmllmcbiw 
He was punished* for the cr[imes] (7. e., caused) him to be punished ?] [for the] crimes® 
"r(?)—s—nf (/)? we,w ely Ae Oe cake 
(which) he had committed, (by) death which [he had done] 


m spr-f(?) rf. 
at his(?) approaching to him. 


12d 
Mylti-ry? . . . sb]w | nn wn Ree eee eo | hk. oe 
Like[wise the (other?)criminal]s thosewho hadbeen|. . . . . . . [whohad been] at the head of 





1 For a long time I read k}. K} ‘“‘to name, to think,’ furnishes, however, no sense at all. The ligature jm, 
“to seize,” is quite impossible. Finally the ligature proved to be mr (the archaic abbreviation for ’my-s}), 
“overseer, superintendent, chief.’ Thus the son of the pretender appears as chief commander, probably “‘of the 
army, the soldiers’ (ms‘w). Less probable would be restorations like ‘“‘chief of the horse” (hipparch, cp. line 
4d; we should expect rather frp nfrw for this expression), etc. Space and traces (bow, arrows, arm) favor the 
above restoration. 

2 Wr is probable and a disfigured plural stroke. 

* R for ’w, e. ‘The omission of the ’m “there,” pointing back to the relative pronoun, is unusual and seems to 
be due to the preceding ’m-/. 

4 Although the general sense is tolerably certain, the restoration is very difficult in detail. In the above 
translation I have assumed that the hieroglyphic text changes the subject of the verb from the king (see the demotic 
text) to more impersonal —sz ‘‘they,”” which expresses the passive. The single trace above, which would then 
remain for a verbal root, is unfortunately very high, even for as low a sign as dy “‘to give,” so that an erroneous 
transposition ms for sm might be considered. ‘The following word shows an initial hieroglyph like hz, wz (not like 
h) and behind a small ‘‘strong arm.’’ Below I believed at first to see traces of a ‘‘ wicked bird,” but as this would 
have an impossible position after the arm, instead of before it, I have rather tried to find a horizontal line, , in 
an irregularly high place. Read hsf (with an f supplied over the arm or through the top of /s/, as ge) “to hinder, 
to ward off, to put an end to,” here as “‘to punish,’”’ in a somewhat unusual sense. (Or, correct to nz “‘to 
revenge, punish,”’ after r4e?). 

’ We assume a corruption of ’r—n-f-s, the s standing for st, se, the plural or neuter collective of the personal 
pronoun. ‘They did (7. e., imposed) to him death” (assuming only the assimilation of the ” of naf to the preceding 
sen) seems to be a less probable explanation; the verb ’r(y) hardly could be used in such a way. 

® This demonstrative form seems to be used in imitation of the pe, pai, plur. ne, nai, strengthening the relative 
pronoun in Coptic, 7. e., it belongs to the following relative verb wn, not to the preceding noun. 

7 The distinct (ce) before ’m-f, in place of Coptic emmof, is remarkable in both instances. The construction 
of the object with ’m-— in the first instance is a very interesting modernism. It would be possible to say simply 
é-w ’nt-f, “they brought him,’’ but in order to give the fully accented pronunciation of the characteristic verb, 
i. e., to emphasize the disgraceful fact of captivity, that direct attachment of the verbis avoided. (Cp. L. Stern, 
Koptische Gramm., $493). We understand now why the hieroglyphic text, generally so strongly archaizing, 
uses this modernism for emphasizing the awful fate of the rebels, }m-wt ’m-f: ‘“‘he was seized” (16a), and sm; 
*m-sn: “killing them” (5c). As said there, the latter expression is intended to show how complete the slaughter 
of the insurgents was; it stands thus in direct opposition to the archaistic use of m, after which we might think 
that ‘‘ (some) from (m) them”’ had been killed. 

* Because ending in —w the word “crimes” might receive the plural sign irregularly, as also in other instances. 
The plural sign, however, seems to stand before it and leads us to the compound mt—btw, unknown to Coptic, as 
far as I know. 


76 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE DOWNFALL OF THE REBELLION IN THE THEBAIS—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
gh 
tp—‘w|y?| Maree ey ah n(?)-rm(t)w [e-?]wn—n;-w | dks n 
at the head [of the rebels, the(?) people (who)? had rebelled in 
roa 
es eae —w r—r;—s|n| t-t[hth?|t [e—?] wn—nj—w eR 
he decreed various punishments?] against! th[em] the sedition(?)® (which?)? they had [made ?] 
r-mn-n |  wezlw. 
as far as? death(?). 
THANKS AND HONORS TO THE ROYAL COUPLE DECREED BY THE PRIESTS. 
R-{ntt cat hm-f 
Infasmuch as have done] His Majesty, 
roa 
n-st byty, Ptwyrwmys ‘nh 2t igs ue a ‘nh at 
the king of S. and N. Egypt, Ptolemy living forever, oe ets Be [King Ptolemy] living forever, 
Pith mr h‘ — snt-hmt|-f] hat Pth mr . oo. 
beloved of Ptah, and _ [his] sister-wife, the queen, beloved of Ptah, [and his wife, the queen] 
12f rob 
nb(t) -twy | [Orw’]w;p;dr[jt, | Gllwptre]$ 
the mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, Cll[eopatra, | 
ntrwy| pr my wt, n—nirw [nt] pr p-(?)  [smt?] 
[the two Gods] Epiphanes, according to the decree’ the gods Epiphanes (in) the(?) [way?] 
sf n|tt?] m—dbw 


(the) proper (thing?) [which is?] for the sake of(?) 
I3a 
er Were th er en gs 
[the welfare of (?) the gods?],4 the’ gods (are) 

1 Neo-Egyptian orthography, it seems. 

2 A very remarkable archaism, if understood correctly by me. But I fear that the above restoration of the 
passage attributes a little too much mildness to that unmerciful time. We should expect capital punishment 
for all prominent rebels. 

’ Does this mean “‘according to the foregoing description of the decree, according to the text above’? Wt (for 
early wz) might, however, mean also “‘order, command,” and might refer to the ordering of the right things by the 
king. Thus the sense of this phrase, occurring only here, remains very problematic in the single words, although 
the general meaning is clear. Also the following words are unusual. See next note. } 

4 Tf we should understand m/(/)— dbw in its earliest sense: ‘‘in return of,’’ we should obtain a superfluous parallel 
to the words following below: “‘in return for [the benefits],’’ 7. e., the reason for the honors due to the king. We 
can, however, treat that preposition as analogous to Coptic efbe: ‘‘for’’ pressing intention, as we have it also in 
our demotic texts (/in—s e—tb “‘to order for the sake of’’). See also above, note on r1c, d. Whether the m in place 
of r has any significance is questionable; it may be merely a graphic error for ry. ‘The first signs on line 13 (like 
the strong arm, then effaced traces, then 7) would point to ‘‘for them,’’ but these traces are very difficult. 

5 If the word “people” is preceded by the definite plural article n—, then a relative e— would seem to have been 
suppressed before the verb wn. ‘That article n—, however, is not quite certain; the trace on the stone might also 
be considered as the final —t of ht, h3t “before,’’ and then the verb would not have the definite relative construction. 

° We have a feminine noun (i. e., an abstract?) describing something bad. In place of the above bold guess 
we might try to restore also in various other ways. Thth is usually written differently. Yet “‘the punishment” 
of the rebels could hardly be meant here; the leading verb is an imperfect, with wn, and not a narrative aorist. 

7 The suppression of a relative e— before wn is not easily explained. It would be easier, grammatically, to 
take the two verbs with wn—n;— as parallel principal clauses. 

® The traces have been rendered on the facsimile quite mechanically, without restoring them according to 
the context. ‘They look like an erroneous addition, possibly abandoned by the engraver. 








*?* Jie i 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. TE 


THANKS AND HONORS TO THE ROYAL COUPLE DECREED BY THE 
PRIESTS—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOT IC: TEXT. 
Ioc 
Bees Oe oe, [wrw?]| | [z-] nirw ew tS Oe ae ae 
making tothem [and to their children(?) rewards many] the gods, they are making [for them rewards] 
2sr  =om—’swy Nn [nfrw? [2-w] ty é-w =o SS‘ «| on t-Sbyt n 
(and) liberal inreturn for [the benefits [which are] great, which are liberal,® in return for 
13b 
| 'y—s|n n nirw n—mnhw oF n [n-] ntrw. 
which th]ey [have done] to the gods. the benefits (which) they have done to the gods. 
HH‘ sh(?)n°-[nfr] msb m Nm p -shné -n[fr]. . . 
With [good] luck it has been thought out* in With the good luck [it has 
pie 7 ‘ryw—ntr (w) Rela Sohbet eae“ Oe fe ia 
the heart of the companions of the gods (i. e., the priests) éntered into the heart of the priests] 
a . m(?) pwt-[ntr] 
[who have come?] from the temples 
my—qd— ] Sn yg qnw(?) 
altogether, PuoMiicietnes Fotte MUOMIOES ET) ) 2 < 2 Se re ee ee 
n n—-st ’byty sj—R' [n-|mtw-phi(t)w nt nt(u)’ = pr-‘ 
for the king of S. and N. Egypt, the son of the Sun, the honors which belongto king 
j rof : 
Piw;rwmys, ee ee ee S|’ | Pilwneys nh at [Pth mr| 
Ptolemy living forever, [beloved of Ptah Ptolemy, the everliving [beloved of Ptah] 





1Thus? The traces which at first look like fir after s, are accidental; the first stroke of an n (water line) is 
rather visible above. 

2 We should like to supply nn nfrw ‘these benefits,” but the space seems to be insufficient. NV in trace above. 

3 Hieratic ) disfigured by the sculptor to the two parallel strokes of final —y. 

4 We should expect ‘“‘it entered (‘g) into the heart of the priests” (Ros. 5) or “it was put (rdy) in the heart,” etc. 
(Canop. 11). Our scribe wanted to use a more choice word which implied not only a momentary thought but 
hinted at profound deliberation. Msb(b) seems to mean originally “to turn oneself to and fro,” then “to make 
an effort, to labor, to strive, to exert oneself, especially in thought.” El Amrah & Abydos, pl. 33 (of a kind and 
popular person) mssbbw (Det. thinking, speaking, man) /ir-f, “‘one for whom care was taken, an effort was made,” 
i. e., “one who occupied the thoughts.” Harris 500, 4, 10: “I move myself (ji), reflecting Cu-y hr msb, Det. 
thinking man) under (hr) my love;” see my Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter, p. 22. Grifhth, Siut (Rife) VII, 29: 
(“I am sitting to equip my tomb) reflecting (msbb, Det. Antelope, possibly a mistake for the jackal?, see below) 
for the sake (lr mrt) of my tomb.’ I do not understand Rec. Trav. 9, 96: (1 am alone) n tm-f msbb (det. jackal 
turning the head back as phonetic determimative for sb and at the same time determinative of sense, then legs) 
hr nb-f; the negation tm makes the sense of the phrase, “making an effort, thinking, for his master,” obscure. 
Also, Pap. Turin 60, 15: m msbw (Det. bookroll, plural) ’w ’rw-f stands in obscure connection. B. H. I. 8, 2: 
“the gods shall listen to my (poetical) reflections” (msbb, det. thinking man); the parallelism brings it side to side 
with hknw: “songs of praise.” ‘The word seems related to sbb. ; 

5 The general sense of the passage is clear by the sense analogies of other texts, but the restoration of the 
single signs is difficult. ‘‘Honors”’ is seemingly rendered by gnw (determ. “strong arm” and plural strokes) which 
would be a very peculiar expression. Understanding the two words as ‘‘[recollections(?) of] the victories ”? we are 
puzzled by the first word beginning with m-. The mutilated parallel, Decree I, 8d, seems to differ: Is the above 
text mutilated by omission of the verb [s—wr] “to increase”’ in the infinitive, so that only “ many (qnw!/) honors 
remains? The traces also do not favor the reading of the first group mtw—w “‘that they,” assuming that both the 
verb and the object have been omitted. 

6 Written as in Canop. 10, 49, 53, while Ros. (18) has ss. Also elsewhere the orthography often wavers 
hetween these forms. 

7 Here rather indistinct (over a correction?); restore the clear form after Ros. dem. 22. 


78 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THANKS AND HONORS TO THE ROYAL COUPLE DECREED BY THE 
PRIESTS—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
13d 
Me re eee eh ee oe: nm t-f\|  shmt 
[and his sister-wife, | the queen [and his] wife, 
Iog 
nb(t)-twy] Orw’w)p3dr[;t] | prt [Glw]pir(l)® 
(and) mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, the queen Cleopatra, 
roh 
[ nirwy pr(wy)] » 4 ‘ne 2 Slee etre nt] pr hn n- | 'rpyw 
[the Gods Epiphanes, | [in the temples ?] [the Gods EpiJphanes, in the temples 
Iria 
Rea Ses Se AM ee nm nry—nt = [nt(u)] n— ntrw | [mr—yt(i) 
[and the honors! of the Gods Philopator who] with those which (are) [of] the Gods | Philopator 
I3e 
hm-f shpr(—sn? !!)? hr | ’r-t(y)-hpr-f(?)] nm nj-[nt]  nt(u) 
begat His Majesty, and who had begotten him(?)]!! and those belonging to 
ntrwy mnhwy gm;—sn n—-ntrw [nt] mnh [er t(y)-hpr n—e—'? 


the Gods Euergetes who created them (i. ¢., these) | theGods Euergetes [whohad begotten those who had 


1b 
t(y)-hpr-f] nm n—nt | nt(u) [n— ntrw snw] 
begotten him]!’and those of the [Brotherly Gods 


h‘ nirwy snwy h‘ ntrwy newy Prue nm n—nt nt(u) n—nirw| nt nhm 

and the Brotherly Gods and_ the Gods Soter, who begat them“ and those of the gods} Soter, 
13f 

zfnyw—s[n? |? [gm;}?] | —sn n-yt(i)w [n nf ytwi 

[their] ancestors [who created?] them‘ the ancestors [of his fathers?]' 


THE STATUES COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY. 
mtwtw)? s—‘h* shmty(!)" 
and [that] be set up a statue 


n—-st ’byty s;-R' 
(of) the king of S. and N. Egypt, the son of the Sun, 








! The ample space shows that these words were expressed (and the text read not merely: “‘and of the gods,’’etc.)* 

> The text seems to be in disorder; as it stands, we read: ‘‘ His Majesty (who) begat”’ (shpr rather than shr?)° 
Probably the plural was written first (‘who begat them’’) and the correction to the singular was hastily executed, 
If the traces before the secondary vertical line are indeed /:‘, we must suspect more corruptions. 

’ The traces above represent a horizontal s, although this ends much like a waved n. 

*It remains doubtful whether we have to read as is given above (cp. decree I, 1. ga) or with Ros. 6: “the 
parents of their begetters,”’ — tevt-sn (written there playfully, as though it meant “of their image’’). 

> The determinative (thinking man) seems to be visible. 

° Strangely abridged orthography (by confusion with the following sim). See next note. 

’ Written shtht (with the determinative of a clumsy double crown). ‘The repetition of /t expresses the dual 
ending: -ty. The preceding ‘h‘, engraved very much like shm, may have had a part in the omission of the sign sm 
which we should expect. ‘The origin of this curious word, “‘the powerful (image),” is but a playful, incorrect 
etymology of the word /inty, “‘statue,” which we find in the corresponding passage, Ros. 6. Compare the parallel 
etymological struggles with the words yxevr, shmit “crown” above, p. 43, note 7. 

* Thus quite distinctly. 

* Only here this demonstrative form for the ordinary plural article n— before the relative. 

The trace of a dash behind is strange and superfluous. 

Thus, after Ros. déemot. 22. 

® After Ros. without consideration of the extant traces. 

13 Possibly shortened, as the space is small. 

4 After Ros., not with full certainty of the single words. 


on ih Ss ee Oe 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 79 


THE STATUES COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
Iga Ire 
(Pliw'rwmys] She STE ter Fy Sea ae | Ptlwmys 
P[tolemy, living forever, beloved of Ptah,] Ptolemy, [etc.] : 
1rd 
[k];-tw nf Ptw;rwmys, nb—qn(w) [nt ew] zt n-f Pilwmys | nb qn 
(which) be called: Ptolemy, Lord of Victory, | [which is] called: Ptolemy, Lord of Victory, 
14b 
kh’ rlpylt | nt snt-[hmt|-f hgt nm — rpyt 
and animage of his sister-[wife,] the queen (and) and an image [of his wife,*] 
nb(t) bwy Orw,w;p,dr;(t) t(?) pr‘t | Glwpirleé] 
mistress of both countries, Cleopatra, the queen Cleopatra, 
nirwy pr(wy) m gbh(wy!) [ntrw nt pr| 
the Gods Epiphanes, in the (twofold) holifest !] [the gods Epiphanes] 
place(s) 
n hmt(!)—nb hr rn—f [. ‘\rpy-nb nn p-m’ nt 
of every adytum(!),! on (i.e., bearing) his name,’ {fin} every temple, in the place which (is) 
I4ec lj 
wsht ms‘w(?) nt  ht-ntr wnh n p- | ‘rpy. 
(in) the court of the multitude’ of the temple, (the most) prominent of* the temple. 











’ 


1'Thus, whether we take gdh literally as ‘‘the coolest place,” 7. e., synonymous with the following word, hm 
“adytum,’’ or merely as a general word for ‘‘temple.’’ ‘he awkward translator wanted to use elegant words and 
to emphasize the special holiness of the place, so that we should think of the adytum, the coolest, darkest, and 
holiest room of the temple, if the following words did not contradict this. Not the holiest but the most accessible 
place of the temple is meant. According to the space and traces, the sign gb: has been repeated to express the 
idea: ‘‘temples of the South and North,” as line 16a (literally “‘in the twofold temples’’). 

2 This phrase, “‘on his name,” i. e., where he is worshiped, can be traced back to Ros. hierogl. 6 and 7, where it 
has no counterpart in the Greek, and possibly has been repeated erroneously. Here it is equally vague. Cp. 
Phil, I, rob, rra, 15e, 16¢c. 

8 The first translation would be “‘court of the soldiers,” cp. below, line 17. The soldiers belonging to the 
temples in earlier time have been discussed by Wiedemann, AZ. 1885, 82, Erman, Aegypten, 411, 714. Cp. the 
inscription of Haremheb in Turin, 1. 25: ‘(the king equipped the temples) with priests and ritual priests and 
picked men (stp) of the mnfyt-soldiers.”” It is probable that those soldiers acted as a police troop to keep order, 
principally for the vast domains of the temples. For keeping order in the temple itself and to restrain the multi- 
tude at processions, etc., we find the s‘sty of the temple, Lieblein, Dict. 1186, Cat. Abyd. 1229; Mar. Abyd. II, 8 (also 
Dévéria in his commentary on the Pap. Jud. Turin). Cp. as secular parallels, e. g., the “harbor beadles” (s‘styw 
nt mryt), Pap. Harris I, 28 b. ‘Those ‘‘beadles’’ of the temples sometimes are distinguished from the special 
“gatekeepers”’ of the temple, 1.1. 28, 7, etc. We must assume that the sticks of such small officials usually were 
sufficient to protect the temples; but we can imagine that in the case of some larger and wealthier temples armed 
soldiers may have been necessary to reinforce the temple guardians. Indeed, Revue Egyptol. 1881, No. 2, pl. 35, in 
Greek time enumerates ‘‘the soldiers” —stratiat(e)s, among the personnel of atemple. Revillout, PSBA., 1887, IX, 
230, claims that a temple in Memphis had a garrison of Greek and Egyptian troops. The latter statement needs 
verification; at any rate, we must not think that temple troops in the manner of the Middle Empire were possible 
under the strictly centralized Ptolemaic government. Although we might thus understand the designation 
“soldiers’ court’ as the place at the entrance where soldiers watched the gate, nevertheless that explanation is 
not certain. We find, namely, that in earlier style the above-mentioned place, the court for the laity, is designated 
as wsht Ss(w?), Louvre A 88 (Pierret II, 16) “court of the common people, the multitude” and thus still, Canop. 37 
(in Reinisch’s second edition; det. ‘‘people male and female’’). Consequently, the sign for “‘soldier(s)”’ seems used 
here merely in the sense of ‘‘multitude’”’ and may be read Ss; also the sign ms“ has, in Greek time, the same double 
sense, ‘‘soldiers’’ and ‘“‘multitude, people.’’ See the same orthography as in our text, in Brugsch, Zwei Fest- 
kalender, |. 24, "hyw n(w) p-ms*(?) “the court of the people(?)”. Above, p. 70, we had a certain example of ms‘ 
“multitude” (gf), corresponding with Coptic més, méése. (For the development of sense cp. the use of bezih 
“many, multitude” as equivalent to “troop, army” in Ethiopic.) 

4 A strangely wide space. 

’ The n might also be explained as local: ‘‘the place (most) conspicuous im the temple.’ This would, 
however, be archaic style. 


80 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


THE STATUES COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
[m] kit msntyw nw  Bedt E-w ’ryi[-f]® eh yb n rm(t) t-Kmy. 
[in?] work (of) sculptors of Egypt. It is made like work of Egyptian people. 
14d Fig 
Miwtw {s-\‘hi . . . . | nitr—nt(y)(2) Niu-w t(y)—'h, | wetwt n p-tntr 
And be _ set up [an image of] the local? [go]d And shall be set up a figure (of) the god 


m  ht-ntr-tn t-p, wt? | n. p-rpy let ae 


in this temple [giving a (royal?) sickle-sword of vic- | of the divine cycle] of the temple [who gives 


1th 

[é]wiw(/)? 2 nb [qnw?]* hps | qn(!)® | n p-twot =n 
tory to] theimage of the Lord (of) [victory?] a sickle-sword]| (of) victory to the image of 
r4e 
| nz(?)- n-f® hl wy?] pr- ‘h (?)m—b,h(?)°—-  [f] 

punishing for him asmitten (captive)(?) the king. standing(?) [before](?) [him!"] 

I2a 

n[ty?]} . . . . ‘m(?)-[s?|n |. . . mt(u)—w(?} ; Lor 

[which is?] [imploring?]  [th]em(?),° . . ». « . and they(?) < . . 0s eee 
rdy(?)—n wn|w|t(y) w PP 

(and shall?) give (? 4. ¢., place) the officiating priests’ | . . . . . «s+ « «= os © ge 





1 The determinative of the sitting god is preserved, but rather rudely drawn. 

2 This reading ‘‘city god, local god,’’ seems clear on the stone and gives an excellent sense, especially if we 
compare it with the mention of the ‘“‘nome gods,”’ Ros. 7. —The demotic parallel, however, seems to show that the 
reading ntir pswty (psdty?) “god of the divine circle,” i. e., dominating the local circle of gods, was intended as the 
original sense, at least in the Rosetta decree. The circle sign admits either pronunciation in abbreviated 
orthographies. ‘The parallel passage, decree I, ge, renders the passage differently, it seems, 7. e.. more elaborately. 

’ The ¢ is not certain; the first sign looks rather like traces of w than of #7. The word “image” is here written 
twiw (cp. 8b, etc.). The restoration [k;|-tw [-n-/], “which is called,” is risked; at any rate, there seems almost 
nothing between 2 and nb; the space points to as narrow a sign as that of “‘statue.”” (The vertical stroke after the 
vertical palimpsestic line belongs to this line as a tentative scratch.) 

4’The traces -do not favor the restoration nb gn(w), ‘‘lord of victory,” it is true, but the demotic text seems 
to leave no other choice. 

>“ To stand,” ‘i, is improbable without determinative, so I find a club-like ideograph and the strong arm 
as nz (cp. 12c? or hsf, ge?). Again, the reading (after Ros. 6), “he has defended (nz—n-f) Egypt” militates against 
the rather clear , which could hardly be read Bgt “Egypt.” ‘The least probable explanation of the above group 
is as a verb ending in s. 

°T assume that the (very probable) ’m- expresses, as explained in the note on demotic line ge in a modern- 
izing way, the object of a somewhat emphasized verb. ‘This verb might then be dw; “worshipping, saluting,” 
dbh “‘begging,” or the like; the space is, however, very narrow (especially if we understand the horizontal stroke 
above as pointing to m[ty], the relative) to identify it in the traces below that stroke. Bold also is the restora- 
tion of h[wy], ““a smitten man,” as crowding and archaizing.. (I considered, for a long time, a restoration like 
hn‘ or hr “‘with, and.’”’) ‘The description of that representation, of course, admits much variety of expression. 

’The group rdy-n “have given” is by no means certain. We can not restore the group determined by 
“people” to w‘bw “priests’’; the high size of -w would be intelligible only after a w‘b written with 6 underneath, 
for which group space and traces are unfavorable. The -i-like trace under w, if not secondary, would also be 
against that restoration. ‘The expression ’irty seems, however, always to refer to the sanctuaries of Egypt (cp. 
Philensis I, 4b; II, 4a, etc.), so that the priests must be meant. So we read, after the initial traces, wnwtyw “the 
officiating priests’’; literally “those in their hours” (cp. decree I, 14/), as synonymous with “the attendants”’ (I, 
rob), although the space is scarcely sufficient and indicates unusual crowding of the signs. 

* Unusual verbal form, disfigured by the engraver. The text is already difficult in Ros. 23; especially the 
sign ’r ‘‘make”’ is similarly disfigured. ‘ ; 

* The enormous extension of the last stroke does not seem to indicate a division. 

This restoration is not at all certain. ‘The preposition m-—b3h ‘before’? would be strongly disfigured; it 
looks quite different directly underneath in line 72h, namely, like ’rw “they made.’’ Yet, a reading “they (sé) 
(are?) made (’7-w)’’ would not easily fit into the context. 

The passage, very negligently written in Ros., seems, according to the space, to have been shortened 
(probably the verb). ‘The determinative ‘‘metal’”’ of ps, apparently, is further disfigured (like ¢-), ete. 

‘2 T do not succeed in connecting the demotic and hieroglyphic texts. Worthless guesses from the isolated 
traces are better not discussed here. 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 81 


THE STATUES COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
: 12b 
nity m ‘trty RS ur ee kim, h‘ 
who (are) in the (temples of) the two halves Ririeetes) (ee aeee eS x 7) x... procession 
14f 
hr hni{tyw—’ pn] ( 


(of Egypt) for(!) [these (two?)] sta[tues]! 
[dbht (m) sp III m hrt hrw 


[(sacred) apparatus three times every day 
m(?)-b;h?|  —sn 'Y-Sn 
before ?] them,” (as) they perform 
tb-t;-rd® —nb twit]. n fr 
everything prescribed proper to do 
15a 12¢ 
[z?] k3(?) | [-w] xn nirw | nt ew ’r-w n n-k’w ntrw 
[to] the spirit[s](?)* of the gods which are done to the other’ gods 
spt|yw® te Seen DOT a0 h' [n-hbw =s n| h‘w 
[of the nomes at the(ir) festival day]s and (at) [the festivals of processions® 
[hrw] hb n rn-f® nm n—hw(w) rn 
[the day(s) of] festival in(!) his(!) name. and the name days.? 


1 The hr—‘‘for” before inty(w) is very peculiar; it is not impossible that it stands there by a contracting 
adaptation of the text as preserved in Ros. 7 and Phile, I, rob, 7. ¢., we must suspect that the above text 
was simply mutilated from hr [Sms] hntyw ’pn “‘[worshipping] these statues.’”’ Assuming the verb sms, ‘“‘serve,”’ 
to be transposed to a later place, in the gap following the object, we should have even a more awkward 
adaptation. Ros. 7 reads: “‘two statues,” but Philz, I, rob, the simple plural. 

2'The space suffices for this restoration after Ros. 7, Phile, I, 10b, because the hieroglyphic writing allows 
easily the necessary crowding together which we must assume here. 

? Is the sign r, which follows the group ¢p-t}—rd, a disfigured bookroll? 

4 Guided by Ros. hierogl. 7, twt n k}-sn “proper for their spirit(s),” 7. ¢., for them, we can guess that the vertical 
stroke represents the pole of the standard on which the &-sign rests. It seems to have two pendants, radiating 
from the point where the horizontal and vertical pole meet, a somewhat unusual hieroglyphic form. The above 
poetical use of k; “‘spirit, soul, double, self,” is common. Our redactor has shortened the text slightly. This 
original text seems to have been corrected, however, since on the plates |] have tried to read: s—{h‘|-sn ‘‘ (when) are 
brought out in procession,”’ changing the unusual k;-sign to s. At least, we can see that this disfigurement of 
sense has been accepted in the other Phil decree, tod, which aga‘n shows its later date in this development 
of redaction. ; 

5 That is, the local gods. Cp. Ros. hierogl., 7 and 8. A trace of (the second?) st is visible. 

®° This error is common to all hieroglyphic parallels. Even the seemingly more correct text of Ros. hierog]. 
7 reads: “At the festivals of each season and the day(s) of procession and also (see Phile, I, rod) the day of 
(m erroneously for 7) his(!) name.” Phila, I, rod, copies the Rosetta text faithfully. But the last expression is 
correctly “the name days,” in the demotic text in Ros. 24 and Phile, I, 11a, the latter document trying to be 
more clear by marking the plural rn—w. (This expression could, unfortunately, be understood rather as “the (afore) 
mentioned days” than as ‘‘days of their name.’’) See our demotic text above. So n rn-f, understood here as 
synonymous with hr-rn-f ‘(the days) on his name,” 7. e., “bearing his name,” ought to read “their name 
days.” As, here and in the model text, the Rosetta stone, the special days to be celebrated for the king were 
defined only in the following section, we have a good illustration of how carelessly the Egyptian versions were 
worded where they wanted to be more explicit than the condensed Greek text. The singular “day” of the 
Rosettana, in the hieroglyphic text, is especially negligent and obscure. 

’ Exactly as in the demotic (24) and Greek (40) Rosettana. The hieroglyphic version, ‘‘nome gods,”’ i. ¢., 
“principal local gods,” improves the above vague expression. 

8 That is, festivals, on which are held processions, as in better parallels. 

® That is, at the days devoted specially to the local gods, bearing their names. ‘This expression corrects the 
corresponding hieroglyphic text. See note 1. 


82 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


SMALLER REPRODUCTIONS OF THOSE STATUES. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 


r2d 
Persie Pages } P-|twt n pr- nt é-w -t(y)-h'-f 
The image of the king which is paraded in procession’ 
Sim n [hlmf (—) ht bay ths 


an image of His Majesty (be?) engraved on the stela [shall also be engraved on a stela?.*| 
15d 12e 

n|ty?|? | sh;w-pn [hr-tp—f?]? | mt(u)—w ’r(?) 

of(?) this decree [on top of it?]. | and that be made(?) 


'y-wi-f  hri-sm,  sb()w 
It is executed slaying an enemy, (while there) is 


p;—nir—nty(?)® rdt(!) nf Soa ek te el 
the local (?) god giving to him ea» wl. Js oS 
hps n—st n [q]n(w) See 3 Oe qn 
the royal sickle sword of victory. [giving him a sickle sword] (of) victory. 
FESTIVALS COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY. 
Miwtw ’r-w(!) ['bdIV] Smwi(!) Nt(u)-w = (dt) IV Sm, (hw) ITI, 
And be made [the 12th] month (Mesoré), | And that be made the r2th month, day 3, 
r2f 
hrw III {hrw|) nn sm’w-s Ww p- | hw n ‘n-—smy [hr] 
day 3, [the day] of reporting it towards the day of bringing report [about] 
I2g 
[h|m—f ae et ee a rys(!)  i(?) ws oss; »rst|nyqst 


His Majesty [through the mouth of a Friend of | Aris[toni](q?)os,!2 son of Aristonikos, 





‘The text contains a serious gap. It jumps from the portable, statuary, picture of the king mentioned 
in the demotic text (apparently much more briefly than in Ros.), to a flat picture on an immovable stone. The 
mentioning of both pictures close together seems to have created confusion. We have noticed some rash and 
unsuccessful shortening before. Perhaps we should place that gap in the line below, for s‘m seems to stand usually 
for images in the round. Otherwise we might fill the gap simply with méztw “‘and that be.” 

2 If we supply “of stone” (m—nr), then the next word would need an n ‘‘of’’ as connection. 

’’The chief difficulty of this restoration is the small space left for —/. Read smply “‘on top,” hr-tp? 

4 As though a vertical stroke had been changed to /ir, or rather vice versa? How would the gap be filled in the 
first case? 

> See above, p. 80, note 2, on the corresponding uncertainty of r4d. 

® Less direct expression than the ordinary m of the dative and more respectful, consequently. Cp. the “before 
His Majesty”’ of line 4f. (Or simply e as a mistake for (e)—?). 

"The text of Ros. 24 has here: ‘‘and that be paraded the image of the king,” so that it looks as though our 
relative clause nt-ew had been confounded with the conjunctive nt(e)—w-: “and they.’’ Otherwise, however, the 
wording differs. We have not read anything on bringing forth that picture. See on the hieroglyphic text, note r. 

* Thus I try to bridge over the apparent gap between the last and the present section. This is, of course, a 
rather violent expedient. See on the hieroglyphic version of this passage. 

* I have not attempted to explain all isolated traces, e. g., plate d. 

'’ | believe that to the scribe of the demotic text the suppression of the name of the courtier who had brought 
that important report to the king seemed as strange as it does to us; he inserted there the name of the probable 
prime minister and victor in the Thebais, leaving this name, however, also in its proper, later, place, so that a 
doublet resulted, each time with some mutilations of the name, showing how hastily the scribes worked. This 
theory seems to me easier than to assume that we have a correct tradition of a second name suppressed by the 
other passages, although the hieroglyphic parallel, likewise, may be not quite in order, as said above. ‘The incredi- 
ble confusion of the names seems to have been caused also by confounding the title strategumenos with them, 
which title, apparently, has been omitted. 

One small letter effaced after s; less probably another over this. The ¢-like next letter may be read g with- 
out too great difficulty, but we gain nothing by this. 

” Preserved either —gs(/), or —w(?)s preceded by ¢ or g (or parts of a round /?). 


a 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 83 


FESTIVALS COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—continued. 





HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
15d . 
ome: | mrt!) n_- n-st hr I) os a ae 
His Majesty], a Lover of the King, about who [is of the friends of the king(?) about the 
meee, | n{y|w,s pi- : 2(?)s? [s?] [32 ]s(?) 
[the commander of horse, Aristo]nios, the [son] of | commander of horse], [Aristoni]g(!)os son of 
rge r2h 
[][rw]s|[d];zygw(?)[s] _ [hr?] mh(?)t | _rynygs 
Aristonikos, [about?]' the capture(?) Aristonikos 
n(??) [sb]’w nw  btnw 
of the (most) wicked (one)? of the rebel(s), 
Iga 
h‘ (bd) III smw hrw [XXIV] Oe ioe eee te Ee, 
and the rith month (Epiphi), day, [24] before [the king, and the 24th day of the 11th 
15f 
| — [r]dt(?) ym(y)[n]ws* nty eo Rs. ae — sb} 
(when) caused’ [this Strateglumenos, who (is) month,® there was captured the] enemy,’ 
16a 

’‘m|wt] ’m(yw)—’d | [tp n hm-f pr-—— n—m-f mh(t?)-f [n—m-—f?] ‘nh. 
among the Friends, [the First ones of His Majesty? | (of) theking onit, he took(?) [him ?} alive. 
a ] hm-f m—wt(!) mf 
that enemy of?]? His Majesty tobecaptured on it® 

"Reading thus, I must admit difficulties of the group explained as mlit-n, “‘to seize, to capture.” (Only at 


is certain; against mlt=Coptic amahte, “to seize,’ speaks the absence of the determinative.) The sign mh is low 
(like az). But » (for classical m) is very questionable; we must prefer to see the broads or sb’ in that horizontal line 
above, because there is no trace of a high s below. It seems that this preposition n, m has been omitted by mis- 
take, since intentional omission would be unusual and strange. I find, however, no other explanation. M zt 
for the correct m 2d, ‘“‘saying, thus,” is much less plausible. 

* The adjective receives superlative sense by the following genitive, as often in Egyptian and in other lan- 
guages (above all the Semitic). In our text we may have, however, merely an archaistic phrase taken from ancient 
literature with little or no understanding, which might mean also “the wickedness of the rebels.” 

® The small w looks also like a small nw=n. Cp. 4e. Hardly a proper name. 

*This most probable restoration can not consider the apparent tail of a sign hanging down behind. This 
looks like the tail of mh, so that we should have the verb mht, amahte, of the preceding note in normal orthog- 
raphy, ‘‘(when) seized N. N.”’ The only explanation of such a strange doublet with the verb “‘be captured”’ 
following below would be a grave stylistic negligence resulting from a hasty correction of the text. As we have 
similar confusion in the parallel demotic passage, we could explain that stylistic blunder as a later attempt to 
minimize somewhat the personal merit of the general Aristonios after he had lost favor with the king. Such 
an explanation would be more plausible than a simple stylistic improvement producing the doublet (substitut- 
ing archaic }m for modern mh, mht). However, we better abstain from building too much on a small stroke, 
knowing how much we have to expect blunders of the engraver. A space shows that a preposition has been 
effaced and that the following name is not the subject of the verb “‘to report.” 

5 The large space warns against connecting the group, “‘His Majesty,” directly with “‘first friends,’ tempt- 
ing as this seems after 4/. 

® The “‘on it’’ points back to a preceding, supplied relative, so that we obtain, more freely translated, “the 
day on which N. N. caused to be captured,” etc. (Less probable, as object of the verb.) 

7 Preserved either —gs(/), or —w(?)s preceded by ¢ or g (or parts of a round n?). 

8 In demotic this restoration requires very little space. 

* Or wicked, impious, against the king. 

” Only the /-circle and the vertical dash for the ‘nh-ideogram seem fairly certain. The group before the 
vertical line of the palimpsestic text seems to contain an —f in ligature, which makes us think of a verb followed by 
the suffix —f as subject or object, but this does not admit any certain reading. 


84 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 


FESTIVALS COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
m hb wri m—hnt? [x] hd(?) 
as a festival a big one in [as] a festival , 
73 

gbhwy r—-tp [x n-—rpylw’ [rnp?|t-nb... | nt(u)—w 

the sanctuaries (of both parts of Egypt) each [in the temple]s every [yea]r® and that be 
166 

rnpt nb(t) | Ww tr[’|(t/)— nb [aero 

year, at each (corresponding) time(?).° [held these festivals(?) (also when) correspond (?) 


hr?| wh(3)-nb ’[rpy nb 


days?] every [season?] [every templ]le(?) .. .° 


I3c 
'w—s[n?]4 wih ‘h, [nt(u)—-w | ’r]yt-w hr-rnpt-nb — ss(w)III 
Be(?) put up oven(s) (for holocausts) (and) [that] they be held each year three days, 
sqr  winw h‘(?) [rr  (’)htnd(s) nt(e)w "r Ribas, win 
poured out libations and [made all things and that be made _ holocaust(s), libation(s), 
13d 
wi] n  "¢, ‘bb, | p-sp [n mtnt]pht n ’ryt-[w] 
proper] to do, oblation(s), the rest [of the things] proper to do 
16c 
m— | [t]wiw  rdt mh 
and be placed crown(s) 


‘This looks like a bold restoration. ‘The trace above, preceding the big vertical line, does not resemble the 
head of the wr— bird. It may, however, be executed negligently. 

2 The calf’s head is distinct; it stands without complementary —¢ as it seems. 

’ This remark is not quite easy to understand. It looks at first like a pleonastic repetition paraphrasing the 
words “‘each year’’; this superfluous character is not removed by connecting it with the following description of 
ceremonies (‘‘each time be put up,” etc.). The demotic text, which contains an addition in extending the celebra- 
tion over three days, suggests that the hieroglyphic text here has been mutilated. I think it has been condensed 
awkwardly from Ros. 11 (demot. 29, Greek 48), changing the monthly repetition of those festivals to a more vague 
recommendation of repetition at any shorter interval than a year. ‘The scribe of I, rod, feels the obscurity and 
tries to correct it. 

4 A trace above might indicate a horizontal s. 

* Cp. Ros. hierogl. 11, ete., for this restoration. 

° A rather indistinct determinative (‘‘garland’’) used as ideograph. 

7 Narrow space only for this group; also the following restorations imply crowding together. 

° These restorations must assume an unusual crowding together of the required groups. 

* In opposition to the preceding note we must assume lengthy additions in the demotic text, which is not very 
satisfactory. The probable group mh, usually ‘‘to fill, to fulfill,” has, apparently, here the uncommon meaning 
“to return, to correspond,” a sense which can be explained by the analogous use of mah— forming the ordinal 
numerals. ‘The above word for “‘season”’ (probably not quite correctly engraved) occurs again in Canop. demot. 39 
(incorrectly reproduced by Krall; my personal collation confirms the reading by Revillout and Brugsch, although 
the engraver seems again to have erased the vertical stroke. (See Kém el Hisn.) The Greek (20) renders “‘the 
times,’ the hieroglyphic text doubly, by irw ‘‘times”’ (as in our hieroglyphic Phile text) and by phry “returning 
time.’ ‘The strange addition (Canop., 39) n—wS, looks like a second etymology of the same word. K6m el Hisn, 
line 11 (again poorly reproduced by Krall), mutilates that addition as unintelligible to the engraver, but gives the 
group wh; better than Canop. We have now the etymology of the Coptic p—wois ‘‘the time,” pointing to the root 
wh}, originally ‘‘to go around, to send around,” later ‘‘to go around (for) something, to seek,” Coptic wés ‘‘to 
desire.’’ Spiegelberg, Petubastis glossary, No. 99, was misled by the erroneous doublet of the Canopus text, as 
Grifhth was previously by the n—p-ws of 2d Khamuas 6, 36 (Rylands Papyni, glossary, 343). The latter may, 
however, be understood “‘in the gap, te fill the neéd,” so that the popular etymology of Canop. 39 seems to 
be isolated. That derivation from ws ‘‘to be empty, to be lacking, deficient’”’ can now be abandoned as very 
improbable. 





. 
a ee 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 85 


FESTIVALS COMMEMORATING THE VICTORY—Continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
é mje 
r tp[w|-sn m hbw—pn [nt(u)w] ty kim[w? | [n pl] hd 
on their (i. e., the people’s) heads at these festivals | [and that they] wear crowns [at the] festival 
5, —n(/) ’r(?) hb [n] rpy [-nb?] 


beginning from the celebration(?) (of) the festival (in)  [every?]® temple [celebrating these days | 


[of the New Year (on the first day of the first month?) 


ITI(?) Lf rst wetter ag se 


to-day (of this month?)]' —_ three(?)? EE |. co nem el fii ceremonies?]” splendid (ly ?)§ 


SPECIAL HONORS FOR THE QUEEN. 


Mtwtw S-heteeeee es Nt(u)—w t(y)—-h' 
And (when) will be [brought out in procession the And (when) will be brought out (in procession) 
p(?)—tw#] 
that statue 
‘ Bes _ 
Peete. te niwilw(?) "sk swt Seg ene a re éf—hpr 
statue of the king, shall be?]*’ then also mentioned before(?) of the king, when it happens’ 


1 This restoration taken from Ros. 12, and decree I, 15c, is somewhat long. We might try to shorten it by 
assuming that the preposition 5‘(—m) had here passed from the ancient use ‘“‘from”’ (still so, Ros. hier. 12) to the 
latter and opposite sense which we find in demotic and Coptic Sa: “until.”’ It would then be possible to explain 
thus the above passage “to [the end of?] the festival.”’ As long as the text is incomplete, the decision is impossible. 
S‘-n(/) with an infinitive is, of course, an unusual construction, but the whole passage is unusually worded. Ros. 
Greek 50, states plainly that the fifth day of the same month (Thout) was meant, 7. e., that the celebration 
extended over five days. ‘The hieroglyphic text, Ros. 12, taken by itself could also be understood: “from the first 
day of the year to the Five Days,” 7. ¢., to the last, epagomenal, five days of the year. ‘The priests, who were 
inclined to think first of those closing days of the year which were so important in the sacred calendar, could easily 
misinterpret that date thus (7. ¢., from the first festival of the year to the last, through the whole year). Conse- 
quently, our text seems to attempt to make that date clearer by some changes; it is quite possible that even the 
reduction of the festival from five to three days aimed at nothing else than avoiding that obscurity. For the 
amiable negligence of ancient Egypt the duration of the festival through five days ought not to have been oppres- 
sive enough to shorten it. To show some good will was sufficient and the execution of all details was not expected. 
So the correct date seems to have been more important than the extension of some cheap ceremonies. 

2] first tried to read zsrw “‘in splendid ways”’ after the demotic text. (The traces which I once tried 
to find before the plural sign are absolutely uncertain and even improbable.) Zsr means also ‘‘holy, sacred” 
(but hardly thus the demotic corresponding word). It occurs to me now that the three strokes are nothing but 
the numeral. After their arrangement that number seems to be complete (III) and is not to be considered as a 
part of V, so that this would seem to agree with the demotic text. 

3 The —w is not certain enough to insure this restoration, for which the space is rather limited. (Or’w, e=r?.) 

4 Sw=swt of early Egyptian. 

5 The —m half preserved, followed by part of the determinative “flower.” 

® The ‘‘every”’ can be inferred from the absence of the article with the (not absolutely certain but very prob- 
able) word “‘temple.”’ 

™ The ability of demotic writing to be crowded or extended in an incredible way makes the estimation of the 
lost words very hazardous. ‘The above space looks too large after the hieroglyphic text. 

8 On ss ‘extended, numerous (NB!), liberal, magnificent,” cp. line 6e. 

® Rather as subordinate, conditional clause (as in Coptic) than as emphasized principal clause. 


86 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. 
SPECIAL HONORS FOR THE QUEEN—Ccontinued. 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
I6e I3g “a 

rdt h‘ sémt n hat, [’s?] ni(u)-w ty)-h' | p-shm n 
caused to come forth the statue of the queen, | [at that time?]’ (that) be brought out the statue of 
rat s—h‘—f} h‘-f ntr(t?)§ [ut pr, tf-pnt s-hmt nm?| 
causing it(!) (to be) paraded with him the goddess(?) [Epiphanes, his sister-wife also?] 
m hrww-'pn —f nt(u)—w = t(y)®°-h-f nm’ n 
on these days. with him they (shall) bring it out with him on 


n-hw(w) rn—-w 
the days mentioned, 


Mwtwt(!) ’gr(?)> - ‘i N{t(u)—w t(y)—‘h‘(?) 


And be furthermore [placed at the side And there shall be set up(?)!" 
14a 

iets (Pe FJ nb(t) Sr 
of the royal statue the statue]* (of) the mistress [the statue of the queen every year and the hajJlf(?) 

wy mhrww—'pn tp-rnpt—nb(t) rnpt n-tt(?) [ pr-(?) e-f-ty? | 
of both countries on these days, every year (of) the year at the side of [the king who gives] 

I7a 14b 

hk’ psi ee eee M(?)[twltw ’r ‘nh it 2t(?) | Nét(e)-w ’r 
and the half ‘of every year]. And be held life (and) stability forever.” And shall be held - 
bi-erh nty — [hr—-?\hjt— [w?]? hr—‘m p-gr|h]* [2-w(?) h3‘?|-s(?) 


thenight which(is) before them, making music | the night (before) [placing]!® it(?) 


1 This looks like a pleonastic connection of the ancient (s—) and later (dy, infinitive rdt) expression of the 
causative verb. Notice the erroneous gender of the pronoun. 

2 Written like “these three days,” but the stroke between hrw and the plural strokes is to be considered a 
mistake of the engraver. 

3 Written *hr. The learned scribe had in mind the archaic ’hr (for later fr), “now, then, furthermore.” It 
is also one of the possibilities that grt, later gr: ‘but, then,” had been in his mind and that the sculptor confounded 
gr and lr. This would even connect the above form with later usage, which preserved that grt in Coptic je. 

4’The restoration offering itself at first is: “‘[a special festival be installed for] the queen.” The traces of the 
demotic text force us, however, to find a restoration of more specific sense. ‘The trace of the verb somewhat like 
‘h‘, at the end of 16e, may be deceptive. The restoration used above is crowded. 

5 That is, before those (3) days. “The very narrow space makes the later —w, “their,’’ probable in place of 
the earlier pronominal suffix sv. 

® The hieratic sign $m‘ is mutilated by the engraver. The presence of the queen’s statue causes special music 
to be introduced according to the old tradition that goddesses and queens have to exhilarate their divine husbands 
by music, which is more proper for women than for men. 

7 T suppose that the senseless two parallel strokes have been corrupted from the ligature ’s = Coptic is, “behold, 
then.’’ Hardly to be read ¢. For the subjunctive after the conditional conjunctions see Stern, Koptische Gram- 
matik, § 442, 621, 626. 

*The stone seems to bear the masculine ntr: “god,” but surely not the group “ queen,’ 
expect. Is the text in order? 

* This sign confounded with the two preceding vertical strokes. 

A senseless stroke after nm? 

4 Only the determinative “‘feet’’ is visible, but this leaves us the choice only between the above verb t‘aho‘ 
and h}‘, both being used of the setting up of concrete objects, never figuratively of times, days, festivals, etc. 
This seems an important clue ro restoration. 

2 The ending —¢ and, perhaps, part of the determinative (‘‘strong arm’’) visible. 

18 As there is no trace of a hieroglyphic parallel for those loyal, archaistic, phrases, I assume that the redactor 
of the demotic text has transferred the last words of the decree (see the hieroglyphic text, 17/) to a place higher 
up. ‘his furnishes another clue to restoring the sense. 

4 Grh quite distinct; only the i destroyed. 

15 Hardly space for h(})t-w; the sense, ‘eve of the festival,” seems to be certain. 

® Again only the determinative part of the ligature visible. ‘The —s(?) behind is difficult. The following 
stroke might point to mm “with.” 


> 


which we should 


— —— 


THE BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE. 87 


SPECIAL HONORS FOR THE QUEEN—continued. 


HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. DEMOTIC TEXT. 
17b 
m itp | rdwy) m 
in’ the way prescribed in 
’trty a eet |) ee RP Ne ok ele 
the temples (of both parts of Egypt,)? all things 
I4c 
r(?) hbw—’pn sim [—pn? | pf-smt(??)"  é-w-’r ell, 
for(?)’ these festivals (in) [this?] manner,‘ (in) this manner, making  holocaust(s) 
14d 
win ‘bow { nt(e)w Oat 
libation(s), oblations, and shall be [made?]” 
I7c 
Senay st . —sn m | ht-nir . 2 . —mb nt S(m)s(?2)® ~ n p-[rpy?] 
[when they serve] them? in the temple. all [ceremonies?] of | service(?) in the [temple]. 


PUBLICATION OF THIS DECREE. 





14e 
Miwtw hi shiwy-pn hr [‘h'y nty| Nt(u)-w shi(?) [Pp | we n_ wylt 
Andbe engraved this decree on [a stela of | And shall be written [this decree on a stella 
17d ; 

‘t- | rdt m]° sh, [(2?)  mdwt-ntr RECO EP ed a ening eee. 
hard stone in] the writing [of the divine words, of [hard stone in the writing of the divine words, 
shi— n-S‘y sh; imei nbw |i) yee. ee. Wont 
the letter writing (and) the writing of] the Greeks, | the letter writing (and) the writing of (the) Gree]k(s), 

17f 14f 

| s-hi-f m_ wsht ms‘(w) ni(u)—w t(y)—h-f— np—m xn ms‘| (w) 
setting it up’ in the court of the (common) people* | and it shall be set up in the place (of) the multitude 

[m] ht-ntr m rprw-nb hr [rn-f | n 'rpy 'rpy—nb(?)? n 





in the sanctuary,’ in all temples on [his name, | of (the) temple each(?) temple, (namely) in (the) 
1 Thus, evidently, the ¢-like sign below is to be read. 
2 See above, p. 80, note 7. 
3 We should expect “‘in,’”’ m, n. Indeed, the trace might indicate also a clumsy zn. 
4Thus more probably than ssm=‘‘the statue.” 
> We should like to restore the stereotyped expression ‘‘[all things which it is proper to do] them,” but the 
demotic text seems to point to a different expression of this idea. The —sn might also refer to the subject of the 
verb, not only to the object as assumed above. 
®° After Ros. hierogl. 14; cp. also Phile, I, 17a. 
7 Shortening the text of Ros. In the classical language this would be the circumstantial infinitive. 
8 See above, page 79, note 3, on the possibility of reading ‘“‘soldiers’ court” and the greater probability of the 
translation followed here (literally “crowd, multitude’’). 
* Notice the substitution of this ordinary word for the more obscure ideograph (pr—m;‘t?) of Ros. 14. This 
does not furnish the pronunciation, of course. 
The demotic text must have been shorter here than the correspondence with the hieroglyphic parallel 
would require, because it is fuller below. 
11 Thus I should propose to correct the text. The difficult traces do not look much like that reading, it is true. 
!2 The traces would rather point to /‘: “‘to parade,” but the general sense required must be as translated above. 
18 Tf this literal translation is correct it means “ritual ceremonies.” 
“Cp. Ros. dem. 32. 
16 The repetitions of the word rpy may not all be correct. The text has undergone hasty shortening by the 
redactor, as also in the hieroglyphic version. 


= ort, fae ‘Se * ty ae 






. : ore Sv ee 
88 EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES. eee ea 
PUBLICATION OF THIS DECREE -Coatindat a 8 
HIEROGLYPHIC TEXT. -DEMOTIC TEXT. ite 
'rpy mkII, — ; 
| temple(s) (of) first, 
mh I, mh II, mht | ?rpy | mh IL mh IIL. 


in the temples]! (of) first, second (and) third (order) | temples (of) second (end) po (or Ot 
eer dy ‘nh my R' 


—_——_—_—_———’ giving life like the Sungod, 
at hh 


for ever (and) eternity. 


1 The space proves this addition over Ros. 14. a " 
? A stupid omission of the words “‘at the side of the statue of the king.”” See Ros. and 
the correct text. 


% 


ree LnPARY OF THE 
OCT 19 1982 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 


PLATE 1 


er half). 











—_— 
re ee ee 


_ 


| ) \ Te PLE: 
Ela Rom 
cll Sell L a, SS. 


L har eee 
| 
ig 

Ghd 


RE Tr PT PSSA FAP A Be, et 







A OT a 


~ Ltt 1¥e>-ohsinaeed 


LX mi a 7 Ds iy 


= 
ower meee | 


Pee ncaa 


X 


ee eee 









First Bilingual Decree of Philae, a (upper half). PLATE 1 


ani a an 


eae 
ae Ee es pa 
Nate 















Ct el 
\\ QOy 





| eames 
ca WN 


» 
LK 








SQW 


\ 
W 


is 
EXONS 
+ AK 





; 
nm 
ot P 
ac 
adh 
\ 
ee \ 
WY 





oo [| raat 


B ae 


y 


s 


) 
YO 
Ao i 


\ 
| ‘ 
— 





DAES 





—— a aes) | ene we seems, tee 





SS 
is 
¢ ‘ 
- " ° 
e e 
a 


t = 
tA 
~ 
' 
- 





Seven-tenths of the original size 


PLATE 2 


YD. 
os 
2 ° Aft {ithe 





WA RAMAN 





J SQWAMQ 
WOES 


i 
k 
a 

— 


First Bilingual Dec\ree of Philae, 6 (upper half). PLATE 2 











7 
a: 
ak Y 


: ; 
Y 





/\ =e 















o>“, 
Ate 


OF ne il, eae 
MY era a i 


If, 
ae I" Luzs 
| — eins Sepang =] 


J meee 
* 

7 

i 


pe iA ef 
po a (“a G id 
HID AMY Ne LEA 


«7h 


aie 
oO 6 aa ae 











4 | 

} 

} 

} 

] 
s 
~! 
} 
~ 
\ 
' 
af 
“ 
\ 


NO_A® 




















SARA LAL 


i 

ft 

ony Vi 

{ eae aM a; / { 
Hl] Lao > AN, BP fh | 
4 





Seven-terths of the original size 


10 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, c (upper half). 


4 iJ if 
Ue Bice Ly ( =—~ 
\ ss : — LY \) 
\ Nam ee Ss ST 
_ —— =e 
Fins, 
4 


SO pe 
eee eee 


a, 


eee eee Le ~wae~w~ we ee SL 


—_ —— «a 


3 oe — = —— ee oe - 
- hake a cor 
- o- 


a 


_—— 


Se 


(tes _ — 


a 


q | G85 


Cl 


‘ann ANY 
“8 
c= sal 
| \ 
t 9 
So bo pe NN OF ot eS 


po eSsy 


meee ee ee 


ee ee ee ee 


| cesta JPY someco JF ea | 


—_—_=_— Sw oe 


X 


NS EP SP EP ee ey Cee * 


—_ — « Sa 
— eee he — ~ 
pene ' 
. 


él 
: 





ee eet ee ee ee 


Daa 


—<— 


Bose 
r 


Seven-tenths of the original size 


PLATE 3 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, c (upper half). 





—_—— oe 


eS ee Oe 


_ —— 
-= -—_ —_— a 


s spans was lose | wea 

a s ts yh eS See eee Tcagee | ans 

Ape NESS hoes ee 
v ’ 





= 
a 

t 9 
nome ase ater ah 


To) 


ee ee eee en aoe = 
~ 
A 


is C4 
KF 

rans AO 
eo -= 


_ 
—_ —. 
—_— ~~ 


_-_ Se 


} 
=) Oa Wyss ry ee- Se 





' A 
— we yn a AS ? é id — —~| _ 
\ cnet ee i fo 4 &RQ 


Pf {? 
I 






Seven-tenths of the original size 


oh fa CR, EF BS he eee Paki Wg ee Pen be 


Ti eee lain Ti 


ecree of Philae, d (upper half). PLATE 4 


SY Cae WOT 


se ik ak ie. ee, ee oe me 


Pao a 

A) * a e eT BAe“ 
: oi | | 

Pes NA a 





: pean he | 
Aq { f ; ’ 
Nie TIS ZV a, ZaaaONG 
Ri fe < 
1e.., Be (fe 
7 ‘ aeyes L { \ Pa 
see an cA cs { ( La “is ‘Cif, i; 
; Beer, <a ites ‘ Sree, LAE a 
Se ¥ ny fas i ‘ 
\ / Sitios \ i CHE 
pe eR 
8 allies 
(AAS a pea: Ea : j 
free ‘i , tid 4 by 
ty 4 eat ‘= Ze : | 
Me ray 4 
et —_ 4 
2 PRES #--\ ‘WU ZA 
poy / rn Fads ' 
- 





‘ 
| 
- - 


t 
NY 


\ 4 OIE: 
—_— Meee she Spe oye Ze 


——— | 
— 


oS) ! \ : 
Wh pe \eae So ae 2 a 
Pe. Y 7 ‘ : 
ee a 9 U 
To, SS etal { ‘ <—~ | 
eo age See ! 
ae a peta 
1 a | 
i { 




















10 





hs of the original size 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, d (upper half). PLATE 4 


ae KS SAS GATS f 





ee ee a eee 
ae ee ea ee # a 
j aps Le ! i Agee: 
US) as = aii 100 foe 
| ( / | 
r f ! ( : 
c: : 















{ 
| 









~ 


re 


Whe 





SOY 
/ 
; 
t 
S. 
N 
» 


16 


Ss 
wai 
Cun 
ye 


10 


—_—— oo 


Seven-tenths of the original size 


PLATE 5 


ecree of Philae, ¢ (upper half). 





— ee eee 


-_———- 


f 


i, - 4 
g 
sd 
iit 
~— 
” 


; 
ui 


leeges 
M4, 


/, 
£ 


J 


F £6 BES te 
my 


A 


\ Ne, 





z 


~~ 


ag 















pnths of the original size 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, ¢ (upper haif). PLATE 5 










=A 1A 
| 
See 


| Os Sh g nwa 

y) Sane aie = at} ie = 

S| sea tend C 
a 








ST, 7 





~-- 4% 














= s 
ee <a Ye 
: ay Q / / » 2 
| Y, : a 
| de U} y Po ay 
a J Y = 
ae 4 — Fo 
i Z — 7A wv 
oA Ts [ : eae 
SI Co, il " 
ae eo DAPAA I | a 
L : 
\ / 
a 


ee 


ee a Ee ee 
Lg: 

| pA a 0 ay 
i | 

| | Wyr7, oe yy tt [Hizyy, Wa 


M4 
aaa 











—-<<5 
““ 








Seven-tenths of the original size 


PLATE 6 





| roi 


iS 


Fi 


| 


i 


CLEELED DPD 





ik} 


tg Se ae 
% 

— 

ene 


10 


lis 


= Ce bh Si 8akec SSO 


SSNS Sas 


a) oe SN See! Lay we 


SIE Tea [ear] 
if —~ | ay — pes 


Sere 





PLATE 6 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, f (upper half). 














u C2 


< wer i) , 
ceo : 
=} << 


Se 
~ 


le ~ 7 
eo a 


~~ QS Se ca 


— = —=, 
<=, 


Gemisueersse 

“ia ZA 
j eS 
I 
i 


ee 
— 

ae 
ya WE 

7 

¢ 

» 
SONS: ae ey aes 
\ he 


u a J 
a . ie) hs 
Oa eat Rees” us Pree 7. ; 
’ i 5, Dera sy 81, P {i r (a 
CS 2 - Ra Se ib esi a | ee meal al 
: mm, je ue 5 ty 
a ‘ a Pe i Ba my y! . >> % f 
\ Zs eer pee ey 4 Vy Ao gatet - 
\ ’ 7 bom ; ia r Reserte 
pe = ( ie — keel F “a ie Le F . 
: ‘ z , mT, -<3 : ys g H | 
= 5 VT ee 
& f Mera? _ 
/ . : : 21 oe ae 
Bs ae vi'% he ‘ 
. y “ f “i 
ieee: ’ arg eae 
, | a ie. 
NG ‘ } tad ttl 
° , ea a 
Gi | 


\ 
\ 

oe 

eS 







‘ ri 4 
ms 





— 






' tas 
— 






vas 








iL 





- ee 
uF 





= ow ae f, Sige : t 
Ya 3 
ELE 4M: Yet ee Marly Ci Be - Soe C4 | $57 LLELEDE DOS 
oe Lay A eto ae ia ee ia 
, 7 
& ae a a Cy 
t 


\ 


e S\ 


haa 


S) 
2 fy 


So 
c 
We 





—_ 
—== 
—_ een 
— ee 
—.. 
— — 
— <= ee 


oO 
——— 
ae 


| 


10 


—_ mee 


So 








- = 
s\ ‘ 
oa 
\ ‘ 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





PLATE 7 


To) 
at 





-—- w= -—-~ 

















ev 
“ 
wf» 
é 
va 
nw 


a 





(b 





VN 
aN, 
a 
q{ 
fae: 
eo 
tf 


\ 
“ 


“A 


ip ‘ 
if’ * 
¥v 
a 
¢ 





y {) 
Gi 
IP 
/, 
oy 


= 





SD 










First Bilingual Decree of Philae, a (lower half). PLATE 7 





ae | " 4 il 


RE 
| exe | 
ins 
CN» 
| } 


‘. s 
\ 
vay 
{ wet 
\ 
~, 













Oz 


SL, 
Us: Us = 
2 i 
i= f 
. ' 
i 





MEI 


bltesa lS 
(VOX. 
»f 
w 
oe 
! 
| 
| 
{ 


15 














32 JJ 0 Ae ae <— 


a 





< 
- 
= 2: 


Ray 






ppt ae? Sea ae ease aes 
jhez7 - a “4 Jaa 
AAPA, 

b ( S 





j { 1 / 
fio / / 
’ PONG Te wie 
{ x : 


Seven-tenths of the original size 











PLATE 8 















ty oe Lage Gare eee age ager ee 
rl feta f / ZI a { 
a et Ciog 
Va { / { | 
A t ee | | | 
4 Lepecto aot ti a f ‘ 
A iy) 1 | 
"4 feu 
eyed — 
(ees 
a Ree ase Sek ae ae Syl 


40ST : al = 











15 





Ww 














First Bilingual Decree of Philae, 6 (lower haif). PLATE 8 





Te ADT 
ee = lan 
x © OS Vaal ice feaias 
a 
aver] 


il 





Sea ee RU Pee cue ea Z Sere : a 


{ bee we — — —— — —  r—___ ae 


Tite tiga) 





junk 
on 





an : ey a VY Vie Se Mk BA Le a) ee a Pi aS cy ¥ 
* ri oi 2] A 5 aa, hh oh Piel 

: . ?. , ‘ P be Db et 7 ai! Deen ash 
‘ i 


‘ 
' 
= xe NS 


| 





SS 


SO 





a Vek: 
. E\. 4 i 


SOs 


X 





» 


Seven-tenths of the original size 


PLATE 9 


| Decree of Philae, ¢ (lower half). 


~ 
> 
* 
- 


beeen Core oi 





m-tenths of the original size 





tea) 
tas 
a 
<< 
ay 
fa 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, ¢ (ower half). 











i 


ey 





San ae 
I\ 


= 


. ee re eh 


Seven-tenths of the orginal size 


PLATE 10 


_ 











—- =- —, 
-_—— - ‘ 
—— 


by anaes 


~_——_ 


ae 
SSE 


— 











Yee 








ae 
A ‘ 


PLATE 10 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, d (lower half). 


} 
{ca <4] 
\ a 

ones ees paced a 

Ca we 
We as eerie 
hy ~~ Sing eee 
i Tie Ny om 
| ‘~ 

Wale 


e — 
Ae | 
Seg RED é 
“= 


Q® ~ A 
SES 
NON Se 


NS ed 





—— SAS = a 
a ‘ t 
Q J aa 
i 4 \ 
rays \| ie i 
~o Et OS 
ie 4 \ A 
iene Ht \* 
\ 
\ 
seeks 


A 


[ 
— = on 


de 


-_o 
~f] 


- = 








ee 


— 
__ 








Seven-tenths of the original size 


a el J 


, 


— 












sal: 


hy 





nh OLY yi WR oe 
ye th 







Ve ae om 





Ny 
\ewerd memento noise 
ic 


= D ) CON ST eee 
.o4 owt Se 





First Bilimguai Decree of Philae, ¢ (lower half). | PLATE 17 
















t 
| od os 
£2 pest Of ns 
| Zz UC Coe 
| { fr A 
i ( i ‘ | ‘ 
ETA, ~~ we” £%& ? 
/* ” a a 
Swe, ~ 4 
OREO s ~e_ 
(ie 
1S 


a o> AE 


‘. 


i Sere ee eee 


? . p= se 
! —w ese 25 a 





= 
on | 
} 


~« pi tL ee ee 
} 
| 


AS 






a 


ae. SS 
anne Talis, a) oat seen, — _ 
—_ 
a ae 4 
‘\ - 
ed) 
we \ 
>» We 


- 





} 
ae 


L Nee Cri 








Seven-tenths of the original size 


11 
15 


PLATE 12 





AN ALS an8 ne SS Vilew 72 | 
oi Sh eae Avia \\ \ 


ce 





w | 





ane 


Ie 0 





4 


4 

: 4 
ey 

jersal 

Aes eS “wer eet 


Wo WS SS 
ea om SQ 
(oxy 
pebsies 2 aa 


Rete | 
(oon 
—— am i 
sic 


als 


ee 
bi. by 
4 
ud 
|. az 
@ a 
= 
; 
; 








SSS 
, > 





PLATE 12 





\ o hy ~ } ie : iy 
} ‘Ss. a of \ | \" 
ae L De iw 
Ladd [> yi | Va \ 
“1 Ww a ee <M 
, SINS ARAN 3 APN. en SERENE OXY 
; WYK QQ’ BY 
: Bs e f | ‘ 


V 












Yecree of Philae, f (lower half, end). 


{ 
} 
| 
| 


AS REEL 
& ox WWW + 

Be i aE? 
; iit 








foes! 3 A 3 a ~, j 
\ { ° 4 
s SN ~ $) 
= \ . nO s i baad 
se ' nae 
Lom d 
Stated ‘ 
oo ¢ J Nl 
i. ‘ A 
aa cs Wi 
7) 
he j 
? omg 
fx, } . 
~) 
} © 
CA 
N 
WN Ry 
SSEQY _ POLAT 
GYYT ES STeEL 
ay } 
); 
(FSS Loe Oi y 
rere naa ere rae aS SO 
pine Ss Wns as ; ee 
i e~ rink fare i 





hohe Wk \ 


ac eee ee Smee barr aeletie nt Cian rome ene, “ET eect Gt] 
pecs | ( | ™] ‘a ja “WY 
| rai ZA 
a 
poe ‘ oily bow ANY Moe i 
Font -” “a A é ? ? 
aay Do | \ f \ 
On és / 4 wt A hi 
: , \ i 
K / 
~ et \ 











‘ 
' 
# Nahi, 
een 
reas Kn 





Seven-tenths of the original size 





oH 





wey ean Pets 


Bree Bilingual Deere 











ee 
re 








PLATE 13 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text a. 





1\ 
tha 
Flag 
vee 
/ \ 
1 ieee 
/ 

rN 
ay 
ne 


ww we ae oe ee ae 


ve iS 

eat 
(e | 
7 








/ 
“" 


Jie 


Te Oe oO Oe 


SOON 


Ss. 

~—--~-------Sr7 ee a en =p eens ses Ope ek se ee pare es Se ee Pe 
GO A = } aN SN Ba NE SEY ST 
Qe ‘ aoe “ » S AAS 1 
t > k x . = : ‘~ 

‘“ 

LN 

— \ 

= 


INS @e 





2 
= Yen) 
ra 


A 
ede ad 





ts 


a 





— NE 
\ = Ben ita 
~ \ NS \\ 
™~ <2 Na Ny 
page 


10 
15 





Seven-tenths of the original size 








First Bilingual Decree of Philae, D 


(—, ps oon 
4 > = 5 2D BY A a= | 
7 @ 

f tee Se (si]- 6 hd = 
7 gol Z— BAG IAL 


J 4 14 g no I0 
aa 9 Assi E 
ams bysex 
nl Ante RA, Sow 


& O SS ADM" ua <O fag CNG 


s @ 








First Bilingual Decr e of Philae, Demotic text 6. 





. Perso Gua Sx + aby aot 
is FD 9 0 yA G7 AD 2D M4105 tilt (snp 


> Se SAD ngs <meinseyna ‘y 


(. theo S « (si1- =, {45S 2 ae jas . 
sire Meio A 


p 








a (ah aprens ot hte 

Paatiuiels 6) 16 a 0C04n0% of 

fom E suifprghoeee te 

witli ware | = BH GB pwrnre 
abe pay na i om ry 


in (4) val i res. f a” 


| 
art 

% Y 

Lio aD? ; 
, , DLE 6 4 

r vrs) i 
4 J 
y Lie 

















o = | = NS 


rant Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic tex 


g 
a 
2 
A 
BN 
= 





SA SAA SAS Wont SQ EEE 


Sela 





First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text ¢ 
PLATE 15 


| 


——O ae ma ee ee ee 


61% inches 


he 
Xi 
ee 


; x? @ vw Knit 
: = Ze, 20 f 000 Spor 


We 

Gg’ 

ws 

wy 

=i Ai 
a 
et 

pars: — 


_—— 
_—— ~ 
= oe SOD een OP we eee a os oie ah — << 


ai 


~ 
NN \ 
on 
a 
Ns 
Saree 
~ 
ise 
“es 
“A 
N 
aS 
»%. 
# SN 
x ts * 
Sees A 
ar 1 ot 
SS 


AEG PE cig —g Na ape A SS 





y6 wie i901 
AN Le, on 
stg spond 55) S| Da 
2 i ouevumreal lao 
Paw Y. 7 


set pal 4 OO a ee 
DL plnrwe— 


- = peenpageaging “pa 


- }- = o_o 





ie 


= 





= 
= ~~ em ee Oo 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





_ First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic 





(nee wo, fy 


La auinznle ya 

$250 An) woah: 

Zou 090 I-42 unl 
13 MN S6%2s 

B Yaa x ak ovth Ne ji 

(Bes. oka gp 


















Lpiseenlbasar 4 
d ‘Le 








First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text d. 


j 


{ 


| Ye - 
| Cyn a_i m2, : a 


(Aavurleen A. 
$75. 0 asi" Koel. 
<i 09 ote w LES 


: AN. x) SAP t 6D t0pR 





cS of 








PLATE 16 





a 


8 cb ante 
-ta-b[ ey 


Sf > D000 S, be: : >! 


4 


14, 2 Batt! 


iw hires S805 a : a 

: a ae / : TW ae _ 

4 7 . orleas x @ ff I a, ri | \ ; 
3b of yeni(Z1s 2 2 f u ee 


ly bin yer OW a Le p>. 





ue 
a 
2 
> a 
ey en (q 
a 
4 ted de Z, / ‘4 
ee werent ec ad | 
A nd . 
a“ LO) Ss oe 
- re ee oe ao 
i i Ee 
4 ‘i CZ 
ree am Pe : 
a \ { / kag ee rae 
sl Anee C4 en ae 
” | { i { 
Wil en ( 
Pee 
{ Eee { 
U : yr se { 
‘ { ha ae \ 
~ -~ 
{ { ant ah \ 
et ase Pe nah dle ot) best Mlaten ic cat) a> 
{ ne i 
‘ eis 
a -__ 
Rie ~ a —_—" 
a 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





A 


cas 


or 


Or 


10 


— 
Lo | 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text e. 


i 


fon drs. Ze hy) . Blow 
LAs, a ihes wees 
ag Sooo S22 
x ORin, ae o “sh = a 


” 











a “hy 









ZS 

4. Z 
E 

art 


: 4 Raed AG 





\ 
| 
{ 
| 
{ 
1 














First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text e. PLATE 17 








ac 
Q— slay | ahiee. ZZ eo _ 
| ! 
‘an infra aL aT ne 8 | 24 2 = 4 
x OF in, Peete aN (ez "|: ! | = ‘ 
b Qu 
ff Za Z f, , id _ eae. le eet 
| % " 4 sata 12 Y) K 7 ? oD J) “5 a 7 
CS an i A} 
PS sae bianca ill 
| ES 


© SPRING pout’ 


Cr 





e 





i ie & ; G es =. | 
f é ae 
; i Gg . 2 Z | 





MoS R213 Gg s LI \\ m) LOR 

Vuk 2k bes}) ja fiegath 

10 | BR 25" sce F <i. —— 10 
lA ay 





iheouayiapats 
pol LD thin |e 
ag alti, toa | 


ge pe 
(4-eiev* ani 






— ~ 








{ 
2 a Wi ) | oo 
, ction 2 ay a Lig: = 
’ * , re! 
Gp 7? ( ger 
4 ” ta eae TRL es 
ei 
- ~ 17 oe 
eat ane er : l= 
\ rail 
SL canal i ’ oe r 
\ ed ~i 
\ rie a 
ey <— ae 
{ “ r 
Velie 
\ a 
na ae 
BS hee met 


Seven-tenths of the original size 






First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text f. 


L, IS —aowiles.s esito bse 
a2 cfsa 2B [Kus 9 104 Me 
eal s-> I | ests 1" 

deb, [17d HGS, Z| 
(Rare 2 AAMSA DS Ise 
Wa a_f Coy Ut 
fs of Ag liber. RGISt/ 
MCW ou bi 


2U(84-5 20 
Waa (22. eae) be 


; 














First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text f. PLATE 18 





\ \— —Re lke; (stfu havul’y coh 
| (2 3 o-3 Peo {Leys mash Nee 
| vile 5 NN yshly | (ae TL 20 
49 fia liomeneo je. ee 
gina aA dg@ toils lee" 
ae 


61% inches 





Saas 
x 
/ N 
D nek 
eZ Z Ae. 
B 4 LEZ “fh. 
cae Uy 2 fi F . 
a A fs ‘ 
, if a 


29 (2. wit.” wami= 92 a 4 
10 a Ge ‘ i ti c 7 





4 10 
ica ) he" ‘ Ps all > pucie 
v6 \ 2 ty te 
a! 
arn 
ae 7 
\ 





First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text ¢. 























i0 





~ 
et ie eg eee ee Se ES ee Oe ee ae a SOF om, x 





Ts a 4 | F, , , : 


Ai 1 vets ( 7 ia 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text ¢. PLATE 19 


{ 


| 
| 





le : ee | nat 
Jif 4S 8 “43 “fh LoA\ UV ( 
wpe MO ee S 











26 aa yy 
2 Fas ign 2 


~[o Wy ba 


id _ ie rs Z so . ‘3 : 7 


; you “a a 15 


4 ia oat 
m4 ee Ly i ae 
! ae 2 ts hd re 

Leia : 

{ 


—o ee eee ee eS oO ee of 
SO Pe a a eee ome Tar ees care | 
} 


Seven-tenths of the original size 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text A. PLATE 20 


First Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text A. PLATE 20 





’ 


—,,\ 
' 
' 


Ob a : 
} 
A @ na 
he 
* | 
{ 
Wiha | 
A 
Te | 
5 Le | | 
| 
} 
! | 
LO 
aon | 
| 
| | 
va | 
ee: 


10 


15 





Seven-tenths of the original size 


~—_ 
or 


—) 
a] 


| st. Be Ae 


PLATE 21 


_— 


N TIT RRR 
WMA 
Ke 














~ Wy) ( 3 ay 
AW Ome SF 





PK \\ 





10 


= me oe ee ee oat at 


PLATE 21 


~~ — rer 


ce coe oe css acatt Crates gees es —-— pele 
bane Wy LAS XQ 
; Ws 
. a | 









\ 
: H 
, 

—< / j 
: N ‘ Last 
7 : a fs ‘\ 

-- perenne | ay | 

' 

b= 3 Ae ae a at \ 


ES 
oe 
= 


| = 





22a goon on ke 


ana 


ie 


a 
i 
ye 





es 


20h 8 het coke 





CS 


Are at 
life 


Seven-teaths of the original size 


Second Bilingual! Decree of Philae, a (upper half) 
Ca 
SOO, 


Q 


ia 
naan > 
ttl 


log fa 


Sp 





q 
as 


dda 
fo 
4 
£ 


ae 
alee") 





qo0aa00 





YIELD 
. = a a 7 
\\ 





i, | 


OLLTL! 








10 v 


PARA 





LA 


- 


SS) 4 
« S 
= a7 . 
eo Sie é 
Be. 
<: om 
: { 
* 
yal 
re 
Z 
4 
of 











PLATE 22 


als “Li 
















/ 


" 1 / Yer { 

" ee & 

a ~ bas \ f «, 
4 5 5 + ; : “4 


aN —— 
‘ea 1: har a Se nw : 
IS sz in 
(lo SN) jem mt SAL, iaaiie = ! 
| a a 
Zs iy= 
As rey of oo = Ein S a 
hiatal aie ig ea A iis akg SE 


a ae 
( ss 
_ RS, \ 
ee tes nN < 
—-— ee = 
SSE ie oe Boal 5 
















> age ge 


pe ‘ ey 
A ===> : i 
fy w$- eee Ss ( Ih 


f 
| Gan adil 1 
4 \F@a_ =e nda OS -- 


ES Tamers oh ett Sel oa aerate 









Y 





wees ee eee we 
ee eae eee 


‘ renee Ee / | 
— oe t 
fee “1 i ‘ on s, { 








10 
















ZG, 
ame | 
fa Y : 
SSS / YA 
\4 

| 

Rc a es | 


ea) 


—— Oe ee ee 


OF x 
has 


OX 


> 


Al 3 
tA 
A ~~ 
- 
- —_—_ = 
~= —-_ =< = ss = oa «=o nN 
. 





“i 


— — et tl eel 


J us a  . 


wks 





mee eee 


P 


~~ ae SO ee ee 





Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, 6 (upper half). PLATES 





—~ ee ne OO 


i Shas « a w. ost 

































= Ke Seater 2a, Be ae 

| agg 2 2 7, a raat ay C; i bom LEC 2 LEC oe > T yer 5 
YZ Ltt | : ARG Cas ra fle : 

\ ton 4 104 ms LS be Nest i 
poem | 5 ! | 

Arf ey te | 

sae “ai @ VASA S 
JJ @ Al (&) a2, | 0. ta 
4 | 
f WE LZ i | =) 
: Zoe Suu eas | 3 (ee — || y= 

Vom teri EES IES AES 

ae es rie 

! 

» Li Mes SB ae ey pe! SP 

tiree oipaye de ed aa tpg 27” Bee LID 

ao — ~ «i less = ee he 
| ' 

| ae > 

| ze | 

L) AG eee ley LI 

: 

! PARRA el 

Dd) 4 6 Am 10 
| RARA A SN 

en 





Seven-tenths of the original size 





~ 
NN 
kas 
- 
=z 
— 
a 





- | 
a : a} 
7} 





cig 
| 
Bee 


[ral oO 





J 





aaa Se 

















Ve 


bes 
frnrra toad 





I 


Li 
Ni 
v 
{ 





t 
(AMA. ._ GE 


7 =e 
y, 
4 ‘ 


ne 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, c (upper half). PLATE 23 


d a . 
+44] ‘ipa fed) tem @ png - 










~~ = 





Sa 


or ae MSP or ; a 
ST 

a NG 

p= ao O 


17 Mx. 
mato ae ~ 
Vl 
Se Th 

VS 

\e 

SS eee y / 
We 
i 

3 


wo 
> 
cn) 
eae 
ae 
rab eas 
as “ 
<e ~ 
, Ca 
SY ~ 
eh - SS __ 
EY 
\ 
7 
{] 
(Una 
~N 4 
NI : \\ 
ae > 


7N 
XN 
- 
Zs 
et 
mi 
\ 
Ny 
aN 
a 
Hs 
a 
a 
N 
pee Fg 
S 
“o> 


| 
| 
| 
i 





vad € 
“ A 
A ee ee 
Sh Sey ee 
feng | mana omen = Ma u \ . 


i 


. 

ed 
; EE FEN 
Aimy ke 








a . 
7 : vy bit 
f obs rt Taye Oe 
raty , 7 ' 
al tal Fi _ 
r 4 AD “he “ 
‘ Fi ee oe We Nod nas < 
L ’ 1 
, moa) 
— ie SF a ee Se — - 
- 





























ae . pe Per Ox : 
sD cee pp alii 
| oe a 
oy te ered SS ieee —— 
' | z 
ao Be pod Poa ao 
= , ‘ — ae | Sa ae a _ ’ ‘ 
; “ o on eo f RAs 
= > FO gp os aan 
2 ! yi Bags Ge A SO (GLB 
< i oes Lo BEY: a 
| Zi EE | 
= we A OIA BO es 
F A, <4 
| 
H { 
j i | 
| , ) 4 -— a 
7 | : CORR rArit= 
| | : : ooo Ses 
— Easy ep ae 
3 > 
a \ A. Leer 
| \ = 
| 2 = ooo \ 
eee =e 
| 
| Seven-tenths of the original size 





PLATE 24 


e of Philae, d (upper half). 





N a if ' 
‘ \ | 
A=) HAT 

ee 4 


{ 
{ 
{ 
Zz ‘ : 


ee: 
=, 











aes 

\ f 

ky x 
. & YM ye | 
nar A f 24 
a na ta 
r POND Se 
ae ---! 

“=, 


A ! 
BEE 20g onraiaiesN Zoe, wae A ee T5 eset 


al aes a 
; 


( o 


“aa 


NT 4 | Vee ‘ 
eo ae ae Ly 
7) U1 

| ne 


LE, 3) Bi Rp ae 
pe anden |! Ni got he 


\ 





\ UZ 





—14——SO 








is of the original size 





i — 


- ae ee 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, d (upper half). PLATE 24 








- - =a Eee 
we [ C1 ee 
ee ae ae == 0 . ie 












Fe , : = 
4 ae ae SZ Z 
Ble AEF og Cra ee eee ALLAN te Hae o 


Ma a —— ‘ arg eee 
ie een —_" > 
‘\ / ~ 
} 


aie 
| 
ae 


— (ro Se ar 


IE oe eg ea aa 


=z = i —. eee ae 

: Zo ope es CA. ay ate SE ao aE Ze “ o { ; 

a ae OS ELLE cas So ee 
eo F£3 = L Ses 














Seven-tenths of the original size 





10 


PLATE 25 


















y E . ¢ | - 0X 
Sine 8 Pe oe 
1 a) 
cy 
Mae Ss le 
a _> — eae —_ — eee —_ a — 


gee 


’ 






Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, ¢ (upper half). PLATE 25 





~ 
> 
+ 
v 
= wa ee 


AML. 











= 
ee 
ra 
Pes 





re 
MEE 


S 
re ae LOZ 
tA"Gy 
Bee 
Le 
G 
—- 2 






_— i 

4 } 

i ‘aa l 
ee i 
4 a) t 
\ e os | 
4, t 


ied ae EEE 


_~ — olf 






} 








Seven-tenths of the orginal size 





r half). PLATE 26 


4 


Pp 
VARI IT“ C——) 
‘® = E ——S— We 


ay a anaar 's 


. ; Cc“ > Av 
——— \\ 
a 


LD 


10 














Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, f (upper half). 














i = KALLE Tey mae =ig= 
NAN 1a W > —T |) aN Ul AS 

we ae lesen eC rc en eg ne eee oe te ce ae ee : faa 

fy FS] B LIOe ig 






) 
j 


ee Ce WGK A 
h Gus 4G Pare 
’ cat hae a) 
\ aa sic 2 












4 eee erp 
7 ( ————Z \__ JD) ra\ y a 
( ed ¥ ee Wn 
otha, () v) aaa WE 
[eg ve eg a SD segs fe a ne Bn Fa 
sic { | pF 
’ 
es a a 
aii | 
5 Dh Neco 
SSS, (u f ~<a ore: 
{ \ 
ee en crs oa 





id 


= Q 

_ ae Se 1 3, 

BE ce hain ETS 
aS 





PHO 
) | =a) 
aoe 
peee| 7 
sic l \ 
( > 
Re IT [pomererennencmcmmncerneenedy 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





PLATE 26 


10 


ri ue 
re rm 


— oe eee eee ee 


PLATE 27 


a eee 


===3 WV 


N&e, = 


Sec ee se anal SS SS ql orc ec a at ca 
‘ 


eres 
7 é SSX. read PET faa aN Ss 
Go ge a < & A- mca | 
) ee ! Ss eae rey Foat Foard 


gy QA 


{ 

cao 

Tee! ERS 
: 

a 

| 





— ——— 


< i 
- j 
ds 


Le soeee WY sinners Sena 6 he if 
ne vat es fen I $4) 











: AY 
y 





Ti Ale ste lo olen Jo IMU 





a Yen 
ae amr 





— 
> | 
> | 
Se 
oe 
ae 
Je 
ae 
Toe 
Bin: 

| 
L 
| 
la 
O | 

| 
a 
i: 
ipsa 
ie 
Ce 
© | 
= | 
S$ 
. 

| 
<a 


— 
re Nl el —— 


W 
Camano nies 7 : 
aed (Rae File Pram — 
) __ ISN | . oe 0) Pesan eee ANN Ss, 
foe ec PS eS 
oS 





a <a \II 





Seven-tenths of the original size 


{ 
| 
! 
| 
\ 
} 
} 
| 
| 
| 
\ 
—| 
g 


Es ay . 5 ee 
Wey} | 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, a (lower half). 
| 
f 


cf 
Oe a 
Ul Sa 









eg 





Ss () 


Mis 
OPA Y, 
a 
ii¢ sf ? 
Af. ma try } ‘ 
wr " ' ‘ ‘ 
2 \ ‘ F ‘ 
7 ; } : 
in Coy \ : 
A r ‘ 
fa | ae i . ropa. 
Se TS YP Nee Be ee oles ; ' 
ee it, Ans “ gis ¥ . 
an iy hs % ta i * a 
; ~ ’ 
| Ee _--41r meh 
v 








PLATE 28 







ie ieee: 
yl KY 
\ ie 
\ 

WSS QO 


S 


\ 


— 
\; 


SSS 


Wd 


F 


s 

I 

an 

Cl 

© 

Es} 
RW Qo ©0@ 1 


oe owe 
—_——, 
en 


| 
| 
| 
; | 
} 
VV 





pees 
=< 


‘ ‘fg ‘ 
<a ae (= 


Reena te 





fe yh fy Mt & 








7 A 


1] 





Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, 6 (lower half). PLATE 28 


) 
} 
I 
. | 
- 





% 


f 
/ 
if 
vI Me 
». { 
eaves 
5 \ 
C ee 
ey ae 


1] 


ey ee 


=P aly 


ja oO soomams p et f 










EY 2a =a aT — . iz { Do 
ey | We 

; UG | = 
( fA af { ae gt Rac 2 00 J eee Be Sl ===: 
{ i ! ( a 


™ 











KS G e elle SA 7 0 () = 
= eS w AZ AS cts fs oe 0 \e 
ages eas ee @ GBI Aw 
: a SY of 2 = j \ AA y 
i Z = ee —S / ON : APPA, 
gH oz e | 0 anit es Wood, © 90 Day 
| Seis ee = SR ee eee pa ee 

angen | <e ot ae 2 Al The 

| Se we SS 4 


Ve 
| | n : 
S eS é ie cn VARA , 
‘ - | sf S ©} | i oe ae fs =f x i hy — y 
\ | [<2 Zee | i ) je a 7 a : a yi 
‘ ‘homes 4 4 ame ae / . CZ hed = : 
OO a 
ee 


INSA CS 
aI fal! ° ! 
UJ C4 ae (O -B | 


Seyen-tenths of the original size 








wie 


ed Bh i at ent ; ‘ 
. eal ere ake wh de meatal y vee “ 
Peat af AY Oh Ae AM tht hie a Ba wee Ae ee Wty Dh te) ey i ¢ ° 7 am ja 
i Le Ty Oe ee BAR haste. . fie Fae ana , sa om 9 
Sas \ ut ; mee —_ caiienh swale 1 TRY 
ee remem — =i y —s B e eee s Me Sar, at al | Ta if he 1 
¥ +. ih " aoe ask wl es ee iy ne i i i 
SS x; 





LEA 
! 


ee 
ry 
“TS! 
hice, KN | Ae a 
= ane (8 % 3h ky 
Peeree| 
= 
Cua 


se 








15 


i 

© 

C) 
RA _“0“°“7 















\\ 
ie 
Le 
7 
} 
[- 
/ 
Sw 








og em 
\ 
aN 
,\ 
=e \ 
ae i 
a ra 
ve aa es 








PLATE 29 


Tey! Aas is 5 


i Maicccatian 

Ts | oe 
ey . \ 
Ret, to ew 






15 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, ¢ (lower half). 








: he 


IE 
WE 


q 











> ae fy 
f a es ; E 

- -_—_— ‘i — i / 
ars” Sia ie TNS if 

GZ / 








igo oss » HOO 


= —\ = = 





ion see gee ea 


§ cy = i ; 
= ma | ic a LS | at x 


ee 


u —— 
BAVA VAX S Brrr 
3 re we we face <<] > SS eee ss ; 
; X ey Ny e.. ZY 
, ST SY 1 ot =e... 


! 


ver 
: : EET 
Sorte. hagas 7 ae a if at 
CF oe am xg Z ZA “4 : eth, CH 
i nee | I SS aL } 
SRO oo aT bls et 
| ; - 7 











te mA Fam we pe IF, se ! 
fy 

wo NIST eee 

: sim Oa i OO 
ll 








Seven-tenths of the original size 









TY A is 


Maiaccaln 


PLATE 29 


Ss: 


=a 


\ 


Bh, 


\@ oO 


PLATE 30 





i j 


EISENISS 


a 
5 NS | 


i 
rea 


S 
0 
Q 
6 

d 





€23) ath St ea y, 
ats Up 
IOS 





} 
hoe 
{ a es 
\ zit 
ees } 
Ne WAR 
yes ug 
\ : 
eee ‘ 
\ nu 
Yy NW 
x iD GA 














Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, d (lower half). PLATE 30 2 







f { 
i 1 | 
i i PAIS 
aoe, yrc-c-paer 
eye } . au il 
| / YY? 2, 
— 
\seee ee 1 
t : ~——,  ¢ ) 
ees Co) emma 
i ae Sa ae 
Le ple Ae 
ee See ene 
— baa 
ae pene , 
: : AAA 
ea a Lo erin sere 
Fe \ ete 
a ( t 
f \ \ \ a ! 
\ = 3] 
eee ee y Ap 


\ 

< a = / Nag WG 

C) 0 yp { ; ig Cy, ye 
z } ' . aon 





- “ 


\ J " 
a S\N M 
we 
™ 2 






\ % 
| 
eae) eee a an 
2 
Pa 
es 
\ 
eS 
oa 
= 


[ 
cd 





4 re , Y ge g LE \ Ww SP a } 
is SY yi yi eos c>» Ih 
; MET {AMD Fg occncr tet | | 
ef % U —l\ me ltl} 





H 

y 

A 

ik ( Nh) 2 ' 








Seven-tenths of the original size 





1k 
15 





_— 


/ 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 

a 


PLATE 31 
a 
v 
/ 
Fe 





- a 
~ 


) Le We 
‘ oe AN 


a 
f 
FFA 
© 


Wh 
Pott 
Ph 
fa 
a 
—_——_— 





a —— Se ee eee 





x, 


ee ee ee —— . 


aa . 
as) “ ae 4 , 
Ki ofS ot Peon e ae — GW — 






oe 





: 
: a) 
— = aw, . . 
ip i 8 
a! 
‘ 
Lot ‘ 
é 
q 
a 
; a 
‘ 
A ’ 
sy 
See ee ee ee, 
= 
~~ 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, e (lower half). PLATE 31 

















fe { WO I aeao- eget a 


ie I 











] } Enema! = = _————— ee r 
3! ! PETS em AZ N 4 
or ! | ry =f - 2 H 
NS 6 4 Ee Sra) ie Sil @ 17 ee 
ae \ SS ZG > u | i —y=) ate fa) ry es Mf; 
Sy a \ j r ; ‘ { t a al e/a L ] jie Vom Ee i Ve ‘ —— v 
peo Sy aay ton SS a ee | YS Sy 
*, i y i Re es i / ye 
| es ee aa ee eee RR er | (mr Saeys ‘ opmmerreny es ee fn ee 
= Oe 33 Eee 7 
j \ as Vv 
EF ia WV AAS | Oy, & 8a Se 
| oe | ANS —— Les a Sea Pa <a 
oe = BESS Sel es aed EDI AGE et ay a O° 
. ae aS ee = ees 1 ON. z s QV i 
——— — : 
Ele =k ° oot ! AGS 
oe (oe? a = See hae eee ae S$ = | 
; Q i. ces = bry ee " S | 
: 34 a ' CNS a ag; —_ ite J Eg EN o ! . 4} | 
: { eee ae ae ee , a! { 
ae | | x 
$ ee : ~ Ee ay / er a : fee ) 
San ey ae Ga ee —— a! 
awe ~ WA 7 pat i le hate J ; 
: - Wa ( . CS ae - ee es ‘ | 
ie gs| es Bees I 
Se gx ELAS sey : 
| 
{ 
i 
T | 


. 


—, 





7 Pres eee 
Sh Ube ee - 
Lyk eal] Sp RY SHH —¥ Peet” 
: l ee Sava aoe 
3 S70 \ yes BA = | U C5 g\ == © 


I 


oe 
Si ae... 
Hobe Sol Yale J alessio eet 
7 ZI pee — ee é ’ 
oe Le 









Seven-tenths of the original size 





PLATE 32 


1] 


é 
- os 
aa 
°. SN 
. L 
pn, 
£ a 
rot] Oe 
we SS 
~—_- ". 


=) 


hare i 





. 
ry 
2 
ease 
an ee ene ee gt 


| Yen) 
1 








2 ~O) ; 


| <2 6S sy Z 


| fe is 
! Ss OF 
[ ona a) eee 
! 


aoe SER 0 


—— Ss ao 
LTD peer oe : 
Mi Amish 


v2 Axe He 


ia Oye 
\ Yt 0 0 0 








ta 





Seven-tenths of the original size 


(| 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, f (lower half). 














Alon 








PLATE 32 





rh aA 
TES / 

a0. _ - Vf A-------, 

Be L) oe Ea 

ore ee z: 
ae, j 

i y, ak 1} Ne are 

\ ed, ae a ~ 
i 


7 us ew, SOE. Dit deen PN 
is fad s r 
a ar —— v4 - e. “ 7 GTB TEE ORR EER EE SLES ELSES ELT 


_ 


~ 





\ 
5 
\ 
Pat 
Fg 
‘obs 


| 


_ 
- 
¢ 
s 
u 





t Pete ake 
i wo a ay 
i aN 
c= Sasi hay 
| ie 

ey hae 
l Pee st) 
(ad ~~ \ 

.) 


| 
\ 

x 
? 

\ ‘ 
\ 
- 








Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Der 


——————————____- 


_ me eer oe, ee ee ee ae eee 


——~— ee 


Loa 


me ee erry 
1 
\ 
i 


-_ “pa =- = . = 
- ~~! 





fee ig Nee SIP ee pie le 
‘ eS e 
: we ee 
\ 
\ 
5 > 


Pea Saati r meh. tn ett 
cn 
tN 
me , 
aya 
jaar! 
c_~ 
DIR 2 
t e = 
! 
me) 
mi 5 
! YS 


meee eee ee ee Oe 


=] ease is (eee NS e Qs iE Sts Pe! 
RIS : : D nets fle 


ae # 
) 
fly 
i 
a haa 
{ i 
+) 
A 
Al 
' 
Y 
4 
' 
' 





Wy 








ae 


= Ar AY son. SS 





we ge wee oe 


37 Nor ee 
<> DA \ 





- 2’ e 
~ ~ Sage 
od Lge Seo eet ¥ 
4 = A ‘ °° eee 
\ ~ we \ Ws 


{ 
{ 
‘ 
‘ 
{ 
‘ 


ne a ee we Se ee a i ee em i eee eee 
# 
ig pao a 
a a eee - a eee F oe 
= i Go pr a . = > = es =. 
_—— — ea 





— — ee 








PLATE 33 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text a. 





i 

( 

p 
t 


4 


mi 


J 
5 
2 
cS 


~~ & 


> 


/ 
€ 





i? 


= oe ws ee —, ree ae 5 
\ 
. 
ey 


ef) 

U 2 
Ses 
= 


{ 
! 
’ 
j 
{ 
‘ 
’ 
' 
‘ 
1 


’ 
twee me et 


_— “Bp -—- - =~ wu. = =a 


‘¢ 
} 


Wyk 


a 

Z 

oN 
a 


BANS 


/ 
¥ 
' 
i 
‘ 
\ 


TN, 

‘ 

Ni g 
hf A eY 
~~) 

aa 
LF 

hell 

t 
\ 

inthe Sey; 


= 
= 


co” 


>) 
— eR ee ee ed 


5% inches cut off; 
beginning: 


; 

H 

f] i 
t 


4 —Fa 


WW 
my 


uD 


2—e Se PF See oe 


‘2 


- 
2 


-_—-~ nee ow eee OT a EE we eee 
hese -— 


6 ee ee me, ee a 
f 


f 
ds 
ets 


cn 
ha" 
aon 
a s 
’ 





=? 


r] , 


A 
’ 
i 
i 
} 
) 


XS 
PES 
BS 


© 
pond 


14 





me eee eee 


a 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





—— OP eww ee a Ge SE ow ee, 


ad Cd at a Mi NS Shae seer ae een ORS, <a Aen aah ep — ee er eee 
: ,¢ talon! gi ~< 
UN? = 
S : ’ 
ae sg = 
ne ad 
RQ thed ‘ Ny roe 
eft ewe o, = ~ 
= a an ge a x DS 5 . if \ ' \N 
: ~ os ¢ 4 { 
{ - ‘ ¢ AN 
4 ry ¢ P ae 
" é PAD 
XS ens 
* N\A 
‘ 
° 
a 
R ¢ 


1S 
\ 
/e 
4) 
§ 
i 
! 


PLATE 34 


ere asl 
ay pais 
JAB NS: 
a ce . 
Pd ris “9 4 & . “ ’ 
. | © oF 
DJ 


r 
€ 
‘ 
J3 3 
x 
~ 
“ 
at 
@ 
: 2 
i 
4 
Ms 
i 
(4 
v 
G.. 
a“ 
(ay 
Ripe ¢ ig Rape me creer ys Weal eeet tn ges cee pun) eo 


ie aay, 
~ a 
i ee Ne at Aes 8 


- Sareea tatiaaar fea Oo oo oa ee | Peele | aioe 
WN UN g ¢ CA | ss 
&S 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text 5. 








PLATE 34 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text 5. 





am ee cy ae are es ae 


a ae oe ee et SOs tain a 


- 
EN NS 





g 
& 
© 
& 
5 


cs 


q 


CAPS 
wes 


Cd 


* *. 
“7-* 
Cee 4s 
*, I 


a 


i 


a 


= 


if. 


2 


-* 
fF 
- 


at, 


2 


23 


% 


< 


oa 
a“ 


kid 


Cuff 2 


[ 


4 


u 


‘ 


Res 


\é 


~~ 
= 


ee 
1 


aS. 


eg ONMO we wee my ee me See es cok toa antl“ secems  naapt neato aaa ——_— =. = om aw a 1 we ne nem eee an ao nag Ne ne meee —_——_. = a —_—|— — ee oe 
ey N. 


(Few Sf 
Fh. oS S od 


5 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





{ 
914 inches 





SS = @ tate » Cox’ Ge 
4 — 





- Second Bilingual Decree of 











Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text c 








Sar se 

ae p 
hea, ee n4 od Se-a0i 
| ! é af ~ U5 ir D 5 jie iB 
{Ls A 


AIS Sy ule» $5 AAV A 


sho, ptyoull frase 


. A e 2D o 152. sbi? 
02 ie ‘gued prs (SZ 
aaa’ % 9S erthan « 


aban, ops Ve" 
ne Bess ae a 
10 ol os bout € 


| er (26 fy 10 
ee) Soko 
ae 


Be, 12 Necro i eatin 8 Matte dla Fit Pen DN : 
al ach sl yo-shts AVE Zale soi 





ms! ¢ “LH thw eu He woe 


Seven-tenths of the original size 












Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic 


| anes le yy “} 
I 7 te fd 
B jai TCG ager 
Waa Ab CnBe_« Nele 






Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text d. PLATE 36 


F dao (lat DATO vil 
Ae PEG ag va boi a 
Fi oe alnG leo yar $f agote sh. 
S| enctlas ftioeoy Sub. elt. ; 
Sb innate teratltion’m xg 
Noe = DR= nee .rJ155(e5Glr )2: hlva_4 


! wrrole Soowlad ubé> 0D | |aoid.y4 
a: AWE | y 


ag I) Grose Arena” ZA yell & 
10 2 Aooug.fi) ‘Ut fi Ie5adA ti 








ate (line 7) or igh. v 


flag Pesca iat 
| ; Meh) y Esau | toll 
Le a Snes Taek 
GgtltoP ned) enGlai 








| Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic tex 


\ es 


as I ype 


i £ 

Be 5 y04 

! hae a 
SA 

| ACES. 


en is ! 
[beg tone, 
9/28. : 
yalibac |e 


A WA { i | >) A) Ps 





Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text e. PLATE 37 


i 7 


ra , 
A gap 
Ns “ey 


ai! will. 
yale CH 
> nL Ipaml 92 IDE. 
Ieatie AI) sgl 8 
» Iwolia5 pro sey ISS: | 
7. QussAls Ce Leas Hf é 
J UMNSYAS| e529} i z 5(é bie 
‘o Faikeithosez ne AWE wees (Ae 


Nyfloe <pfrall log: "58 *f y 


’ i 


A Gat 
Zilovk 





S38 


| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| * 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 


_. « 


cx 
Ss 
SS 


= 


Seven-tenths of the original size 





im 4 by 2. wy lut. 2.000 e443 






Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text f. 





§ Sanborn tb 


il 1 Ve SoD li 


‘ pee A : 


—-=—, 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text $7 PLATE 38 
| { pt 
| vas 


—— —_— —— ee ~ - 


ee si danfeasne. ee ii 





Ay Aafia lee® i, 
4 ae —— : 





ons nis 
Larount i je 
Sra Tel Av SW 
& C27 wufsguoels 
. E6le Lb ewisf& We aye 
eal Aine eis ei yalaidh| 


Nee2 Balen ¥en eee Be len 


oS IGS hep Bae 
| z oo ! 
: ie 8c 2 ul ie “oid oe: : 


| \ 
' 














Seven-tenths of the original size 





Second Bilingual 





“N 
A 
TSS AAA AAG Cy yy QAO IA®IAS SSSA SESS 


! 
\ 
‘ 
t 


Ars 
i] 


») 
NY 


Ree Sra eee 


ee 





Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text g. PLATE 39 


“ 
bg 


St Weg te 


ol, eee 


5] 


1 
| 


\ 


SSS 


1 
fe 
~ 


\ 


| pm ares sue 
ce aw i BS IALW So. 


WO 
f 


“SA iS 


A nd bs 4 
Y 
SSH WVAAAY 


D 
\ 


7S 
SINS 


WAS 


SLEQng 
‘ 


~S 
\> 


f 


/ 


: j 
Y Ae We . 
/ Ai 
Ayers, 


| ; ‘ : / “~ 


> 


® 
SAVA4“» 


SS 
— eee eee 7 


\ 
Ww 
Rss 
Ve 
= 
SVQ ay 
Ss) 
\ \ 
Vex, 


SSwo 


Ss 


SSS 


( py Boa F~ 
; ZZ ah | 


| 
| 
| 
H ‘@ . | 
(| 2 as As y @ G 
on ay / 
A ‘2) Za 2 rae . ee Fe) | 
ed ee 7 ce Psi =]- 
prog | 
BF iy | 
! 
| 
| 
| 


re 
—, 
> 
s 
SSssT2 


Oo 
) 

a | 

s 

Pa —> 
> ’ 

ARS,” 
W: 
INS 
SS i x 
Sy 

\ 


ok ‘ 


SS 


SV 


SSSQV 
= 
=—=——<= 

\ 
( 


SS 


- 


0 Oe ae gs Oe a ae 


SSE UIVASAMAAAAA 








Y, 
aa YH, Y 
Ps 6 fe ie 
x \ 
an [ j \ 4 
{ Ls { / 1g 
y 4 
Wee \ ‘ We, 
Hea ett Bie he iit 4 
int pal y te 
C4 | fee 
14 hrntn --: : 
EMEC) tetity ( 
Bee Ap or ‘ 1 
a Taint ' 
it ‘eat - -—* 
Nees 





Seven-tenths of the original size 





Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text h. PLATE 40 










Ade 


J Z ae 
~~ 
\ 
+. 
A 
A 
2 Ir 
iN 

ax 
| \ 


Yon, 


: | 
Cee CZ} Ps eed oom ey ay 


Second Bilingual Decree of Philae, Demotic text A. 





7 
1 
s 
f 
a 
a 
f 
{ 4 


10 ad 


i / ; ‘ el 
Of / : bedi 
(eA ea 
4 0! Dr LAs 
if p07 ees 
uy pe wn Ge ES. f | 
A -_- ~~ - ( é Re f ‘ 
rs me { ys ‘ ‘\ | ZZ 
% | 





i aon a an 


Ge 2 aN ‘ 


{ 
{ 
\ 
Tost 
) 
if 
(i 
{ 
{ 
\ 
\ 
aN 
e 
<-> 


cee Ee 


{ ; { 
ty aa 
( \ 
/ 


V4 ! ! 
v 


{ 
l 
—_ ! a | 
ve — — ie ee -—< ] { ee ] 
7 { { 
ra : { aS 
Zann if OIE INCL 
ie os 
-O 
ome Ce - yee) : EG lan 
Sa \ h a P< { 
nN Ne bare Be ( 
\ Pe oon f 
a) ae Om OO ae 
Fu 


” 

---7- \ 

(GS pea KE, ‘ 
ae aN \ j / 

ve | / ate 





i 
f 
( 
{ 
! 
4 
{ 
{ 
| 
\ 
\ 
| 
Lp { 
cae “s Bae eh 
| 
f 
i 
{ 
{ 
{ 


> 
; t i 
5 iy 
‘i teers ! 
/ yal ( the a { 
Hee Sif ‘ ; I { 
a a on Ne hee coe ie , i] 


Seven-tenths of the original size 


Se es care 
[I< 4 
. 
‘VI 
A 
\ 


=a 
A 
S 
S 
Os 








Mi WSs 


Fae 
ae 
4 
, ~ 
Lira 4 c% eae 
open ae x ‘ AN 
/ Nat /, Pe 
if 7 ms Os Lor 


=~ 

¢ 

aL 
Lx 


A 


is ews, 


PLATE 40 


10 


13 


-EGYPTOLOGICAL RESEARCHES 
VOL. Ill 


THE 
BILINGUAL DECREES OF PHILAE 


BY 


W. Max MULLER. vine 
Ty ts 





PUBLISHED BY THE CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON 
WASHINGTON, 1920 




















iii 





